## Facts

- Elayne Cohen-Strong rented a lot at a mobile-home park operated by California Mobile Home Park Management Co. and Brian Dougher (Costa Mesa Mobile Estates).
- Cohen-Strong’s infant daughter had a respiratory disease requiring care from a home health aide.
- The park charged fees for long-term guests ($1.50 per day) and for guest parking ($25 per month).
- Cohen-Strong asked management to waive the guest and parking fees for the medically necessary home health aide; management refused and assessed fees totaling $175 over about 2.25 months.
- Cohen-Strong filed a HUD administrative complaint alleging disability-based housing discrimination.
- HUD found reasonable cause and issued a charge; Cohen-Strong elected a civil action, and the Department of Justice filed suit alleging failure to make reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act.

## Issues

1. Whether a HUD complainant has a statutory right to intervene in a DOJ-filed Fair Housing Act civil action, including after the DOJ declines to appeal an adverse ruling.
2. Whether the FHAA’s reasonable-accommodation requirement can apply to a request to waive generally applicable guest and parking fees when the fees arise from a disabled resident’s need for a home health aide.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of Cohen-Strong’s motion to intervene.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the FHAA action and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the FHAA gives the aggrieved person an unqualified statutory right to intervene in the Attorney General’s civil action based on the HUD charge.
- The court held that generally applicable fees are not categorically exempt from the FHAA’s reasonable-accommodation requirement; whether a fee waiver is required depends on a fact-specific inquiry.

## Legal Principles

- Under 42 U.S.C. § 3612, an aggrieved person who filed the HUD complaint has a statutory right to intervene in the Attorney General’s civil action arising from that charge.
- Discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) includes refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to afford a disabled person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
- A housing provider cannot avoid accommodation duties merely because a challenged rule or fee is facially neutral and generally applicable.
- Whether an accommodation is “reasonable” and “necessary” typically requires development of facts, including the connection to the disability and the burden or cost to the housing provider.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the HUD complainant could intervene to protect her interests and that a request to waive guest and parking fees for a medically necessary home health aide could qualify as a reasonable accommodation, requiring further factual development rather than dismissal as a matter of law.


United States v. Cal. Mobile Home Park Mgmt. Co., 29 F.3d 1413 (9th Cir. 1994)