McAlister

McAlister v. Essex Property Trust

Good Law
504 F. Supp. 2d 903·2007 WL 2580845·2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64843
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaAugust 24, 2007CV070240SJOSHXCalifornia4,024 words

Opinion

Opinion

Otero, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PARTIAL SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ON THE ISSUE OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication, filed May 14, 2007. Defendants filed an Opposition, to which Plaintiffs replied. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Rule 7-15, the Court found this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacated the hearing set for June 4, 2007. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND

Since September of 2002, Plaintiff David McAlister, his minor son, and sometimes his minor daughter have lived at 741 Paseo Camarillo, Unit #89, Camarillo, California, part of a community referred to as “Camarillo Oaks.” ESSEX MGMT. CORP. v. McALISTER, No. 245572, at 2007 WL 811093 , *1 (Cal.Sup.Ct. Feb. 14, 2007) [hereinafter McALISTER Ruling], During the summer and early autumn of 2006, neighbors complained that the McAlister family sloud and disruptive behavior made them feel threatened. Id. at *2. Mr. McAlister has since sent his daughter to live at a residential treatment facility, but not before…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.