Shady Acres Homeowner’Sassociation v. KITTITAS COUNTY, a municipal corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHADY ACRES HOMEOWNER’S
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KITTITAS COUNTY, a municipal
corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 19-35476
D.C. No. 1:18-cv-03016-RMP
MEMORANDUM
*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 4, 2020
**
Seattle, Washington
Before: KLEINFELD, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Shady Acres Homeowner’s Association appeals the district court’s dismissal
of its Fair Housing Act and Washington Law Against Discrimination claims. The
FILED
AUG 5 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
* *
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Homeowner’s Association claims that Kittitas County discriminated against Latino
individuals by buying Shady Brook Mobile Home Park with the plan to close it.
The district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because the Homeowner’s
Association’s claims were not yet ripe and because the organization had not
suffered a concrete injury necessary for standing. We have jurisdiction to review
the court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court for lack
of prudential ripeness.
The Supreme Court has recognized that “[p]roblems of prematurity and
abstractness may well present ‘insuperable obstacles’ to the exercise of the Court’s
jurisdiction, even though that jurisdiction is technically present.” Socialist Labor
Party v. Gilligan, 406 U.S. 583, 588 (1972) (quoting Rescue Army v. Municipal
Court, 331 U.S. 549, 574 (1947)). Such a finding requires us “to evaluate both the
fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of
withholding court consideration.” Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149
(1967), overruled on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977).
Both considerations lead us to the conclusion that, because of prematurity, this case
was properly not adjudicated on the merits.
2

“The purpose of the ‘fitness’ test under Abbott is to delay consideration of
the issue until the pertinent facts have been well-developed in cases where further
factual development would aid the court’s consideration.” In re Coleman, 560
F.3d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir. 2009). Though the Homeowner’s Association contends
that the decision to close the Park has already been made, it concedes that “the
timing is uncertain.” The County’s purchase of the Park does not yet do the harm
that plaintiff fears. What the Homeowner’s Association fears is the effects on
Latino individuals of closing the Park, which may or may not happen at some
undetermined time in the future. Because neither the hardship to the parties nor the
appropriateness and terms of relief can be known at this time, judicial adjudication
would suffer from abstractness and prematurity.
Given the uncertainty about the timing of closing, if it occurs, there is a
higher burden on the parties to demonstrate hardship under Abbott. See Yahoo!
Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1218 (9th
Cir. 2006). Since the Homeowner’s Association has not presented evidence that
anyone in the Park has been evicted or otherwise forced to leave, nor has it
presented evidence that any prospective tenants have been rejected, this hardship
requirement has not been met, even if it might be met in the future.
3

Accordingly, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
4