Professional Documents
Culture Documents
State Mediation Brief
State Mediation Brief
14
I.
15
INTRODUCTION
16
17 Paula Plissken alleged Delbert Duke discriminated in violation of the Fair Housing
18 Act (FHA) along with a Nuisance claim under Civil Code, section 3479. The plaintiff
19
claims that she suffers from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS). The Plaintiff will
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT MR. DUKE’S CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION BRIEF - 1
1 II.
2
FACTUAL SUMMARY
3
The plaintiff did not notice any odors during an inspection of an apartment
4
9 happy with the paint as it is.” (Email, 22 August 2017, Duke and Plissken). The
10
defendant happily granted this request. Ibid.
11
The plaintiff omitted a medical condition of sensitivity via email nor on the rental
12
13 application. (Rental application) The plaintiff did not mention a specific disability. Ibid.
14
15
III.
16
17
LEGAL ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS
18 A. FHA Claim
19
A tenant with a disability as defined under the FHA. 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (f)(1)(A). A
20
landlord’s failure to reasonably accommodate a tenant. 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (B). A disability
21
22 is a physical or mental disability that substantially impairs, limits a major life activity, a
23
record of having such impairment or regarded as having such an impairment.
24
Landlord’s deference to a prior tenant is appropriate. Temple v. Gunsalus, 97 F.3d
25
26 1452 (1996). Recurrent symptoms in response to chemicals at doses below those in the
27 general population. Reuther v. State, 455 N.W.2d 475, 476 n.1 (Minn. 1990). There is no
28
DEFENDANT MR. DUKE’S CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION BRIEF - 2
1 single, widely accepted physiologic test. Ibid. MCS meets the definition of
2
“handicap”/disability. 455 N.W.2d 475, 476 n.1 (Minn. 1990).
3
MCS is so severe that reactions cause one to call the ambulance. Slocum v.
4
5 Califano, No. 77-0298, slip op. (D. Haw. Aug. 27, 1979).
6
7
1. Plaintiff’s Contentions
8
9 The plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has failed to make reasonable
10
accommodations for the Plaintiff. Here, Defendant refrained from painting. The
11
defendant has had the ventilation inspected, and he has asked Ms. Deets to adjust her
12
13 cleaning habits.
17
should know the context of a health issue, so his decisions can be adjusted accordingly. A
18 vague explanation that lacks a reference on how to accommodate one with MCS is
19
insufficient.
20
The plaintiff contends that her doctor has diagnosed her with MCS. Here, Dr.
21
22 Sunder’s letter states that Plaintiff’s symptoms and medical history are consistent with
23
MCS.
24
However, a more likely explanation is that this letter concedes that Dr. Sunder’s
25
26 opinion cannot overcome the fact that it is inconsistent with the medical industry’s lack
5 2. Defendant’s Contentions
6
There is no conclusion the Plaintiff has MCS, which shows that the Plaintiff has
7
failed to show that she has a recorded history of MCS. Although the Plaintiff was
8
13 there is no official diagnostic test for MCS. Therefore, Dr. Sunder’s opinion cannot
17
The defendant requested that Ms. Deets change her cleaning habits. Ms. Deets also has
18 health issues. Ms. Deets may induce the Defendant to accommodate her reasonably
19
because he knows her disability of obsessive-compulsive disorder. This cannot be said
20
for Plaintiff because Defendant has not been officially informed of Plaintiff’s disability.
21
22 Also, Ms. Deets was a tenant of the Defendant’s before Plaintiff. The ventilation
23
system was examined by a handyman who concluded that the ventilation was working
24
fine.
25
26 Here, the facts are analogous to Gunsalus in a manner that is likely to result in a
27 similar outcome. Here, Ms. Deets was a tenant before the Plaintiff became a tenant. In the
28
DEFENDANT MR. DUKE’S CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION BRIEF - 4
1 present case, the facts seem to make it evident that many of the options the Plaintiff
2
would like implemented hurt a prior tenant. Ms. Deets moved in before Plaintiff which
3
shows that Ms. Deets will likely receive deference from the court.
4
9 B. Nuisance Claim
10
That Ms. Plissken occupied the property;
11 That Mr. Duke, by acting or failing to act, created a condition or permitted
a condition to exist that was harmful to health; was indecent or offensive to
12 the senses; was an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere
13 with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.
That this condition substantially interfered with Ms. Plissken’s use or
14 enjoyment of her land;
15
That an ordinary person would reasonably be annoyed or disturbed by Mr.
Duke’s conduct;
16 That Ms. Plissken did not consent to Mr. Duke’s conduct;
17
That Ms. Plissken was harmed;
That Mr. Duke’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Ms. Plissken’s
18 harm; and
That the seriousness of the harm outweighs the public benefit of Mr.
19
Duke’s conduct. (CACI 2021); (Civ. Code. § 3479).
20
21
1. Plaintiff’s Contentions
22
The plaintiff cannot use and enjoy her apartment because of the use of toxic
23
24 chemicals and an industrial strength vacuum cleaner. The plaintiff has been harmed via
25 problems with breathing, walking, and dizziness. The toxic chemicals are offensive to the
26
senses, obstruct the free use of Plaintiff’s apartment because the odors prevent Plaintiff
27
28
from leaving and enjoying her apartment.
DEFENDANT MR. DUKE’S CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION BRIEF - 5
1 An ordinary person would suffer annoyance or disturbance from an industrial-
2
grade vacuum used at such high frequency, which is also unreasonable. The plaintiff’s
3
non-consent of the defendant’s actions are shown by email on 14 September 2017. The
4
9 The plaintiff’s harm outweighs the social utility of Defendant’s actions because
10
Plaintiff has a disability. The balancing of harm is misguided considering Gunsalus
11
because the court held that deference should be to the first tenant.
12
13 Accordingly, there is unlikely a showing that the Defendant is liable for Nuisance.
14
15
2. Defendant’s Contentions
16
17
The defendant lacks negligence for liability in nuisance because he took the
18 initiative to create a better environment for Plaintiff. The defendant made efforts to
19
ameliorate interference with Plaintiff’s apartment by requesting that Ms. Deets adjust her
20
cleaning habits. The defendant’s actions have not harmed Plaintiff’s health because
21
22 Plaintiff has symptoms that are also consistent with other medical issues.
23
Obstruction of the free use of the property is misguided because the Plaintiff’s
24
health is not normal. 3 Cal. App.5th at p. 262. The defendant has not imposed any actions
25
27
28
DEFENDANT MR. DUKE’S CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION BRIEF - 6
1 The plaintiff is suffering harm because of other illnesses that are manifesting
2
themselves as the symptoms she is currently suffering which are the cause of her harm.
3
The Defendant is not a substantial factor. Assuming without agreeing that the
4
5 Plaintiff is suffering from a diagnosable form of MCS, the Plaintiff would still suffer
6
from her alleged disability regardless of the Defendant’s actions. The Plaintiff has
7
admitted that she is sick because of substances, which rule out the actions of the
8
9 Defendant.
10
Lastly, the seriousness of harm (vacuuming habits of Ms. Deets) is likely
11
outweighed by caselaw directing the court to give deference to the first tenant (Ms.
12
13 Deets), therefore limiting what Defendant can offer. 97 F.3d 1452 (1996).
16
17
C. Affirmative Defenses
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT MR. DUKE’S CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION BRIEF - 7
1 2. Comparative Fault
2
The plaintiff must have known cleaning chemicals are prevalent and that her
3
actions to move into a building that commonly contains chemicals shows that the
4
7
3. Failure to Exhaust
8
9 The FHA states that a plaintiff can go directly to an agency that resolves FHA
10
issues. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s issues would have been addressed more efficiently
11
because a court of the agency is more familiar with such issues.
12
13
14 4. Fraud
15
The plaintiff’s claim is barred due to fraud. The plaintiff omitted information
16
17
about her MCS within the “Special Requests” portion of her rental application. The
18 plaintiff knew she had adverse reactions to chemicals, as commonly used in households,
19
and she guarded this information from Defendant.
20
21
22 5. Waiver
23
The plaintiff’s claim is waived due to Plaintiff’s intentional omittance of relevant
24
information in her rental application labeled “Special Requests.”
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT MR. DUKE’S CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION BRIEF - 8
1 6. Estoppel
2
The plaintiff is estopped from asserting a claim under the Fair Housing Act due to her
3
intentional omittance of relevant information in her rental application labeled “Special
4
5 Requests.”
6
7
IV.
8
9 DAMAGES
10
The relief sought by the Plaintiff is as follows:
11
1. Plaintiff declares that Defendant Delbert Duke has committed discriminatory
12
13 housing practices, as set forth above, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42
14 U.S.C. § 3604;
15
2. Enjoins Defendant Delbert Duke from discriminating against any person in the
16
17
terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision
9 8. Medical Expenses:
10
a. Bay Front Hospital Outpatient visits: $2,505.00
11
b. Hospital stays at Bay Front: $33,080.00
12
17
f. Bay Front pharmaceutical expenses: $184.00
26
27
28
DEFENDANT MR. DUKE’S CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION BRIEF - 10
1
2
Dated this 19 of April 2018.
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT MR. DUKE’S CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION BRIEF - 11