Whether the Fair Housing Amendments Act requires landlords to accommodate the disabilities of individuals who occupy rental housing, even where the rental arrangement is not supported by adequate consideration

Questions Presented In 2000, the City of Santa Monica purchased an existing mobile home park that it intended to use for low-income housing. Lawrence Salisbury had lived in the mobile home park with his father since the 1970s. Mr. Salisbury is a disabled person with a mobility impairment. In 2011, a dispute arose between Mr. Salisbury and the City regarding Mr. Salisbury’s dog. The City wrote to Mr. Salisbury’s father and told the father that his son could no longer bring his dog into the Park. In response, Mr. Salisbury’s father informed the City that the dog was a service animal, and that Mr. Salisbury was not a visitor but lived with him, and had lived with him since 1975. The City contested Mr. Salisbury’s right to reside in the Park, claiming that it had no record of his residence there. The City asked Mr. Salisbury to apply to live in the Park, and Mr. Salisbury did so over his father’s objection, but because Mr. Salisbury’s father refused to participate in the application process Mr. Salisbury’s application was deemed incomplete by the City. In 2013, Mr. Salisbury’s father died, and the City refused to accept rent from Mr. Salisbury. The City demanded that he move out, an invitation Mr. Salisbury declined. The landlord-tenant dispute intensified when Mr. Salisbury, acting pro se, sued the City in the California Superior Court. The City won that lawsuit when the suit was dismissed on procedural grounds, but the relationship between the City and Mr. Salisbury remained adverse. The ii City continued to refuse rent from Mr. Salisbury and again demanded that he move out of the Park. However, the City never filed an eviction lawsuit against him. In 2015, Mr. Salisbury asked the City repeatedly to accommodate his disability by allowing him to park closer to his mobilehome. The City ignored his requests. Mr. Salisbury ultimately sued the City under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. (the “FHAA”), for refusing to grant him a reasonable parking accommodation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor the City and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, concluding, as a matter of first impression, that the City was not obligated to accommodate Mr. Salisbury’s request for a parking space closer to his mobilehome because “the FHAA applies to rentals only when the rental arrangement is supported by adequate consideration.” The questions presented are: 1. Under the FHAA, are landlords required to accommodate the disabilities of individuals who occupy rental housing, even where the rental arrangement is not supported by adequate consideration? Is the payment of rent or other consideration a pre-condition to filing a lawsuit alleging violation of the FHAA? If so, may landlords avoid their obligations under the FHAA to reasonably accommodate occupants of rental housing by refusing to accept consideration from those who occupy rental housing? iii 2. Should Fair Housing Act cases, including FHAA cases, be decided by applying a federal common law of landlord and tenant? Parties to Proceeding The parties are those listed in the caption: Lawrence Salisbury and the City of Santa Monica. The City of Santa Monica is a charter city in California. Related Cases Salisbury v. Caritas Acquisitions V, LLC and City of Santa Monica, No. CV 18-08247-CJC(Ex), U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Judgment entered December 10, 2019. (