Jane Creason v. Puneet Singh , 650 F. App'x 462 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 23 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JANE L. CREASON, No. 14-16000
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-03731-JST
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PUNEET KAUR SINGH; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 9, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: WARDLAW, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Jane Creason (“Creason”) appeals the district court’s order granting
Appellees Puneet Kaur Singh, Theodore Kimball, and Kimball, Tierey & St.
John’s (“Appellees”) motion to dismiss. We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Creason worked as a Senior Trial Attorney in the law firm Kimball, Tirey &
St. John, LLP (“KTS”), which specializes in representing owners and managers of
residential and commercial properties. In 2012, KTS assigned Creason to
represent a landlord seeking to evict two tenants after a domestic violence
disturbance took place in their unit. At a pre-trial settlement conference, Creason
obtained information that led her to believe the female tenant had a valid defense to
eviction based on her status as a domestic violence victim.1 Also, in Creason’s
view, proceeding to trial could constitute discrimination against the tenant based
on her sex and therefore expose her client to a lawsuit under the Fair Housing Act
(“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631. With the approval of her client’s agent,
Creason negotiated a settlement that terminated the unlawful detainer proceeding
and allowed the female tenant to remain in the unit. KTS fired Creason for failing
to take the case to trial. Creason alleges that her termination constituted retaliation
under the FHA and several state laws.
We agree with the district court that Creason cannot state a claim for
retaliation on the theory that she “aided or encouraged” the tenant “in the exercise
1
California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161.3 provides a defense to eviction
for victims of domestic violence, with some exceptions.
2
or enjoyment of” her rights under the FHA.2 It is plausible that Creason believed
settling the eviction lawsuit to be in the best interests of her landlord-client, and
that the settlement benefitted the tenant by allowing her to remain in her home.
This type of indirect or incidental assistance, however, is beyond the scope of the
FHA’s retaliation provision, 42 U.S.C. § 3617, and is distinguishable from Smith v.
Stechel, 510 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir. 1975).
AFFIRMED.
2
The district court assumed without deciding that “evicting a tenant with a
valid domestic violence defense could constitute discrimination on the basis of sex
in violation of Section 3604” of the FHA because the majority of domestic
violence victims are women. In light of our disposition, we have no need to
address this issue.
3