Robert Shimkus, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. The Gersten Companies, Sid Wald, Buena Vista Apartments, Inc.

Good Law
816 F.2d 1318·7 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 767·1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 5840
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 6, 198785-2594California2,565 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wright, J.

This is an action to remedy housing discrimination under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. (1982). The Act prohibits, inter alia, discrimination against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in the rental of housing. Id.

In this appeal we are confronted with a consent decree entered for private litigants that conflicts with a consent order previously entered for the government. Both judgments were intended to remedy the discrimination.

The question is whether the district court, in entering the private consent decree, erred in ignoring the rights of non-black minorities under Title VIII and, if so, what the proper remedy should be. We hold that these rights were ignored. The court should join the non-black minorities as additional parties and modify the consent decree to provide for their interests. FACTS

In April 1983, Robert Shimkus filed a class action against the Gersten Companies, a property management business, claiming that Gersten violated, inter alia, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., by discriminating against blacks in selecting tenants at six of its apartment complexes. A…

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.