Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

City of Costa Mesa, California v. SoCal Recovery, LLC, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 20-55820, 20-55870 · judgment January 3, 2023


Certiorari denied · November 20, 2023
Pre-decision estimate: 3% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Questions presented

  1. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) and Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.) define “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. This Court’s precedent* requires a natural person suing for disability discrimination to make an individualized showing of substantial limitation. Can entities such as group homes, which derive their standing to sue from the disability of their residents, forego proving that their individual residents are substantially impaired and thereby disabled, even though their residents would have to make such a showing if they had brought the discrimination claims directly themselves?

  2. The Americans with Disabilities Act and Fair Housing Act also define disability as “being regarded” as having a physical or mental impairment. Can public comments made to a governmental entity be used to show that the entity regarded individuals as disabled, even when the entity did not adopt or approve the particular comments? * Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 483 (1999), superseded by statute on other grounds, ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Mary-Christine Sungaila
Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP

For respondent
Elizabeth N. Brancart
Brancart & Brancart

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Amicus briefs
1 cert-stage

Linked docket
22A971

Proceedings

  1. Nov 20 2023
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Nov 01 2023
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/17/2023.
  3. Oct 31 2023
    Reply of petitioner City of Costa Mesa, California filed. (Distributed)
  4. Oct 17 2023
    Brief of respondents SoCal Recovery, LLC, et al. in opposition filed.
  5. Sep 12 2023
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 18, 2023.
  6. Sep 11 2023
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 27, 2023 to October 18, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
  7. Aug 28 2023
    Response Requested. (Due September 27, 2023)
  8. Aug 09 2023
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
  9. Aug 09 2023
    Brief amici curiae of City of Mission Viejo, et. al. filed. (Distributed)
  10. Aug 04 2023
    Waiver of right of respondent SoCal Recovery, LLC, and RAW Recovery, LLC to respond filed.
  11. Jul 21 2023
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 24, 2023)
  12. May 05 2023
    Application (22A971) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until July 21, 2023.
  13. May 03 2023
    Application (22A971) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 24, 2023 to July 21, 2023, submitted to Justice Kagan.