Civ Pro Writ Assignment 2

7264649 Writing Assignment #2: Hanbal v. O’Connor

1)

Hypothetical lawsuit: Plaintiff, Isabelle Hanbal, is a student at UCSB in Santa Barbara, CA. She found an

available room at a 3 bedroom house near campus via the school’s housing website. In June of 2009, 3 months before school began, she received an email containing the 2-year lease for the bedroom; she signed and faxed it back to the owner of the home. Hanbal is a citizen of California, although her parents are both immigrants from Iran. Charles O’Connor, defendant, is the owner of the home. O’Connor is a citizen of Arizona, who purchased the home in Santa Barbara as a rental property, as well as to provide residence for his daughter who would be attending UCSB in the fall of 2009. Sadie O’Connor, defendant and daughter of Charles, is a citizen of Arizona who moved to California to attend college in September of 2009. In September, after Hanbal had been living at the Santa Barbara home for 3 months, the O’Connor’s came to move Sadie into the home. This was the first time Hanbal physically met the O’Connor’s. Upon seeing that Hanbal was of Middle Eastern decent, Charles became immediately irate and made continuously harsh remarks about Hanbal as a tenant and her ethnicity. This continued for 2 days, until Charles left to go back to Arizona. Thereafter, Sadie continued the discriminatory remarks, causing Hanbal extreme distress and discomfort within her leased home. In December, Charles O’Connor notified Hanbal that she was to move all of her belongings out of the home, and not return after the holiday break from school. When she explained the difficulty of finding another lease mid semester, Charles responded, “There are

plenty of liberals out there willing to house terrorists.” Upon moving out of the house, Hanbal brought a cause of action against Charles and Sadie O’Connor in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for breach of contract for the lease, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which protects tenants from discrimination based on race; Hanbal’s cause of action totals to $90,000. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of CA has personal jurisdiction over Charles O’Connor on a theory of general jurisdiction because his owning the home establishes continuous and systematic activity with the forum state of California, as was the rule stated in Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall. The plaintiff may assert subject matter jurisdiction over Charles due to the federal question of violation of the Fair Housing Act being a significant part of her claim, which was established in Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley as the “Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule.” The venue of the Central District of CA is proper because under 28 U.S. Code §1391 (a)(2), it is the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. The plaintiff may assert personal jurisdiction over Sadie O’Connor on a theory of specific jurisdiction due to the isolated events that establish in-state activity, as held in McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. There is proper subject matter jurisdiction due to 28 U.S.C. §1332, which provides for diversity jurisdiction; the district court may assert jurisdiction because the matter in controversy exceeds the value of $75,000 and is between citizens of different states, being that Hanbal is a citizen of CA and O’Connor is a citizen of AZ (although she resides in Santa Barbara, she plans to return to AZ upon graduation). Diversity jurisdiction similar to this was held proper in Mas v. Perry. The Central District of CA is a proper venue for the same

reasons stated for defendant Charles O’Connor, which was also held in Bates v. C & S Adjusters, Inc. 2)

Changes to the above hypothetical: Sadie O’Connor had been living in CA for over 2 years, and had recently become a

citizen of CA with intent to permanently reside therein. This would make subject matter jurisdiction improper on the basis that there is no diversity as established in 28 U.S.C §1332. Sadie being a citizen of CA would change the facts of the events so that her in-state activity was continuous; this would eliminate specific personal jurisdiction in the US District Court for the Central District of CA and force the claim to be tried in state court. Charles did not own the home, but rather was a co-signer along with his daughter on the lease. This would make subject matter jurisdiction improper because there would no longer be an issue of federal question; for the Fair Housing Act to apply, it must be between homeowner’s and tenants. This change to the hypothetical would also disregard general personal jurisdiction due to the fact that not owning the home takes away continuous activity with the state, as held insufficient in Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall.

Word Count: 822