## Facts

- Edna and Rafael Itzhaki owned the Shenandoah Apartments in Los Angeles and relied on Leah Waldman to assist with building management tasks, including keeping keys, receiving rent, and showing vacant units to prospective tenants.
- Anna Harris, an African-American tenant, rented an apartment at the complex beginning in October 1994.
- On December 6, 1995, Harris overheard Waldman discuss a vacancy with a repairman/gardener and state, “The owners don’t want to rent to Blacks.”
- Harris presented evidence that Waldman acted as the owners’ on-site representative in rental-related interactions and that her statement reflected discriminatory rental practices affecting Black prospective tenants.
- Harris sued under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) for racial discrimination; while the case was pending, she moved out of the complex.

## Issues

1. Whether a former tenant who has moved out lacks standing under the FHA to pursue injunctive and declaratory relief and/or money damages.
2. Whether the evidence, including a rental-related discriminatory statement by a person functioning as the owners’ on-site manager, was sufficient to defeat summary judgment on FHA claims and support potential owner liability.

## Decision

- The court held Harris lacked standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief after moving out of the complex.
- The court held Harris retained standing to seek money damages for alleged past FHA violations.
- The court concluded Harris presented sufficient evidence to create triable issues of fact on discriminatory rental practices and the owners’ responsibility for Waldman’s conduct.
- The court affirmed the dismissal to the extent it denied equitable relief, reversed the grant of summary judgment on the damages claims, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff’s move from the challenged housing may moot requests for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief, but it does not bar claims for money damages based on alleged past FHA discrimination.
- At summary judgment, the court must not resolve credibility disputes or weigh competing inferences; genuine disputes of material fact require trial.
- A discriminatory statement tied to rental decisions may support an inference of intentional housing discrimination under the FHA.
- Owners may face liability for discriminatory acts or statements of an on-site representative who performs rental-related functions such that a factfinder could treat the person as acting on the owners’ behalf.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit limited Harris’s case to damages because she no longer lived at the property, but held that her evidence—especially the on-site representative’s statement that the owners did not want to rent to Black applicants, coupled with her rental-related role—was sufficient to proceed to a jury on FHA damages claims.


Harris v. Itzhaki, 183 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 1999)