## Facts

- Brenda Janush, a tenant with a severe mental health disability, leased an apartment at a low-income building operated by Charities Housing Development Corp. (CHD) that had a lease “no pets” clause.
- Janush moved in with two cats and two birds without disclosing them before occupancy.
- After CHD learned of the animals, the parties discussed whether Janush could keep them and under what conditions.
- Janush’s treating psychiatrist stated the animals lessened the effects of her disability through companionship and were necessary to her mental health.
- The parties disputed the interactions: Janush alleged harassment and a failure to offer a reasonable accommodation; CHD asserted it was willing to accommodate in part but that Janush did not provide requested documentation such as vaccination proof.
- CHD initiated eviction proceedings; Janush later moved out and filed suit alleging, among other claims, failure to reasonably accommodate her disability under the Fair Housing Act (FHA).

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly stated a claim for refusal to make a reasonable accommodation under the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3).
2. Whether the FHA’s reasonable-accommodation duty can extend to disability-related emotional support animals in a housing complex with a no-pets policy, or is limited to trained “service dogs.”
3. Whether genuine disputes of material fact regarding necessity, reasonableness, and refusal to accommodate precluded summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
- The court denied defendants’ alternative Rule 56 motion for summary judgment.
- The court rejected the argument that federal housing accommodation duties are categorically limited to state-law-defined “service dogs.”
- The court found material factual disputes about what accommodation was requested or offered, whether documentation requests were reasonable, and whether defendants’ conduct amounted to a refusal under the FHA.

## Legal Principles

- An FHA reasonable-accommodation claim requires allegations that: (1) the plaintiff has a qualifying disability; (2) the housing provider knew or should have known of it; (3) the requested accommodation may be necessary to afford equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; and (4) the provider refused the accommodation.
- The FHA’s reasonable-accommodation inquiry is fact-specific; categorical exclusions based on a no-pets policy are not dispositive.
- Disability-related animals may qualify for accommodation even if they are not trained “service dogs”; state statutory definitions governing service animals do not control the scope of federal housing obligations.
- Summary judgment is improper where disputes over the parties’ communications and conduct bear on necessity, reasonableness, and refusal to accommodate.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the case to proceed, holding that the tenant adequately pleaded an FHA failure-to-accommodate claim and that disputed facts—together with the FHA’s non-categorical approach to disability-related animals—prevented dismissal or judgment as a matter of law.


Janush v. Charities Hous. Dev. Corp., 169 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2000)