Smith v. Ring Brothers Management Corp.

Opinion

GATES, J.

On April 25, 1984, appellant Leon Smith’s family would certainly have been characterized as “classic American.” It would even have found favor with advocates of zero-population growth. It consisted of one husband, one wife and two minor children. When, at a rental he could afford, Smith also came upon the ideal sized residence for his ideal sized family, he could but believe his good fortune was continuing apace. What he had located was a currently available two-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment in the Canoga Island Village that was owned and operated by the several respondents. Then darkness descended.

Appellant’s money was rejected and he was informed there was no room in the village for such as he. He was advised that while these facilities were entirely appropriate in size for his family,

1

nonetheless respondents utilized a strict head-count rule that operated to preclude parents with two children from occupying a two-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment unless they waited until after they had moved in to have their second child.

Understandably frustrated, appellant filed the instant suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. From the sustaining of respondents’ demurrer without leave to amend, this appeal is taken.

[651]

Content to assert that their regulations are facially “age neutral,” respondents tender neither justification nor explanation for what otherwise appears to be a wholly arbitrary practice. However a “three-person-upon-entry-and-thereafter-four” rule clearly violates article 5.5 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code insofar as it favors children in útero, or in contemplation, over children in esse.

2

Since respondents’ challenged conduct is illegal under this ordinance, we need not consider (1) whether it would also violate the Unruh Act (Civ. Code, § 51 et seq.;

Marina Point, Ltd.

v.

Wolfson