Arminda Madrid v. Kmf Fremont, LLC

MEMORANDUM

Arminda Yu Madrid appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her housing action alleging that defendants failed to accommodate her disability in violation of the Fair Housing Amendments Act (“FHAA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Budnick v. Town of Carefree, 518 F.3d 1109, 1113 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Madrid failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether an accommodation of her disability may have been necessary for equal use and enjoyment of her apartment. See Budnick, 518 F.3d at 1119 (listing the elements of a failure to accommodate claim under the FHAA); Giebeler v. M & B Assocs., 343 F.3d 1143, 1155 (9th Cir.2003) (defining the “may be necessary” or causation element of a failure to accommodate claim under the FHAA).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking portions of Madrid’s declaration that contradicted her prior deposition testimony. See Nelson v. City of Davis, 571 F.3d 924, 927-28 (9th Cir.2009) (a party cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact with an affidavit contradicting his prior deposition…