On September 24, 2024, Plaintiff Pharilyn Chhang filed the operative second amended complaint against Defendants West Coast and Sergio Madrigal, alleging causes of action under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), wrongful eviction; invasion of private right to occupancy; and breach of duty. Plaintiff claimed that she is a disabled person who requires her emotional support animal, Onyx, to reside with her.
Defendants intended to call Robert S. Griswold to testify as an expert witness “regarding the standard of care for a property owner/manager as it relates to accommodation requests, insurance issues and costs, ineligible risks and liability exposure and related issues.” However, Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude Griswold.
Plaintiff also filed a motion to preclude Defendants’ expert witness Kevin J. Valine.
Real Estate Expert Witness
Robert Stephen Griswold is a recognized expert on management of all types of residential real estate. He has actively managed over 70,000 residential units and several million square feet of commercial, industrial, self-storage, and retail properties nationally in the last 40+ years.
He is a 3-time graduate of the distinguished Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California with a BS (’81), MBA (’86), and MSBA (2nd Masters) (’88) in real estate and related disciplines.
Insurance Expert Witness
Kevin J. Valine has more than 45 years of experience in the field of property/casualty insurance and risk management.
He has been licensed by the California Department of Insurance to transact Property and Casualty insurance since 1983.
Discussion by the Court
I. Robert Griswold
The Court found that the standard of care is not relevant to the claims at issue. Additionally, the expert did not appear to have expertise in disability accommodations consistent with the claims herein, nor did it appear that the expert reviewed the insurance policy exclusions.
As a result, the motion was granted as to Griswold’s opinions that Plaintiff’s request for an emotional support animal was denied on “legitimate grounds,” and that Defendants met the applicable standard of care in their ownership, operation, property management, and maintenance with respect to Plaintiff’s request. The motion was further granted as to Griswold’s opinion regarding undue hardship, the feasibility of a reasonable accommodation, and that Defendants acted reasonably by offering to temporarily allow Plaintiff to keep Onyx on the property while Plaintiff sought to relocate. Finally, the motion was granted as to Griswold’s opinion that allowing Plaintiff to keep Onyx on the property would have violated the insurance carrier’s exclusions.
However, the Court denied the motion as to Griswold’s opinion that the property’s insurance could have been non-renewed or canceled for allowing an animal on a breed-restriction list; that permitting Plaintiff to keep such an animal would expose Defendants to financial repercussion; and that a loss of insurance would have imposed a significant burden on the property’s residents and occupants, subject to Defendants laying a proper foundation that the applicable insurance policy excluded the animal in question.
II. Kevin Valine
The Court also found that Valine’s opinions regarding the appropriate standard of care for a reasonably prudent insurance broker were not relevant to the claims at issue.
Although Defendants argued at the hearing that Valine had opined that granting Plaintiff’s accommodation would have exposed Defendants to an “uninsured exposure to risk of catastrophic proportion,” that statement appeared within his broader analysis that “D&D met the standard of care for a reasonably prudent insurance broker.”
As a result, the Court concluded that expert testimony on this issue is unnecessary, as it would not assist the trier of fact given the irrelevance of the standard of care.
Held
- The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to preclude Defendants’ expert witness Kevin J. Valine.
- The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to preclude Defendants’ expert witness Robert Griswold.
Key Takeaway
Certain expert opinions offered by Griswold and Valine were deemed inadmissible because the standard-of-care analysis had no bearing on the claims at issue.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Chhang V. West Coast USA Properties LLC |
| Docket Number: | 1:23cv1335 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, California Eastern |
| Order Date: | June 02, 2026 |
Leave a Reply