A California mother of a boy with autism said she “felt sick” when her former neighbor sued to have the child’s “disgusting” backyard playing declared a nuisance. The mom is now fighting back with a lawsuit of her own.

Serena Arvayo lived with her son, Ezekiel, known as “Zeek,” along with her father and his wife in a San Jose apartment owned by Marc Goubert. But Arvayo said she had to move out and away from family, because their next door neighbor began harassing them about Zeek’s backyard playing.

Zeek is an 11-year old boy who has autism and is nonverbal, but can produce sounds known as “vocal stimming.” According to his mother, Zeek also has attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as well as sensory challenges and communication difficulties. As a result, Zeek requires 24-hour supervision.

In a March 1 court filing, Arvayo detailed a disturbing interaction in May of 2022 between herself and her neighbor, identified as “Janine” Chu Lu.

Arvayo said that as she and Ezekiel were about to go to the park, Lu approached them, introduced herself, and “began to list out her complaints with Ezekiel.”

According to Arvayo, Lu asked Arvayo not to allow Zeek to play in the backyard or to let him go outdoors for even brief periods of time.

“Shocked, Serena began to explain that Ezekiel was a young child who suffered from a severe form of autism and was completely nonverbal,” the filing recounted. “As such, the noises Janine was complaining about were Ezekiel’s attempt to communicate emotions and were uncontrollable.”

The Arvayo family alleged that “[i]nstead of being understanding, Janine asked Serena, directly in front of Ezekiel, if there was a cure for his condition.”

The claim continued to say that, “Janine’s offensive and callous comments were deeply hurtful, offensive, and upsetting to Serena and Ezekiel given that they were said for the sole purpose of causing humiliation and shame and targeted towards his disability.”

Arvayo said she exchanged phone numbers with her complaining neighbor and invited her to call if there were ever a specific problem requiring attention. According to the filing, instead of calling Arvayo directly, Lu opted to message the landlord just days later to report that Ezekiel was “playing in the background by himself and making strange noises, and no adults [were] with him.”

“It is so disgusting!” Lu allegedly added in her message.

The cross-complaint said that during the same month, Arvayo and Ezekiel had no choice but to move out of the apartment in order to preserve their emotional well-being. Their move resulted in increased expenses for all involved, they said.

Arvayo said now that and her son are living separately from their other relatives, they only visit Ezekiel’s grandparents occasionally on weekends for a few hours at a time. However, according to the mother, relations between her family and Lu got worse last December when Lu filed a lawsuit asking the court to award her monetary damages for Zeek’s “nuisance” behavior.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether…

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether to stay EPA’s ‘good neighbor’ rule

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 22, 2023, 9:22 am CST

The U.S. Supreme Court will have oral arguments in February to consider an emergency petition to stay the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “good neighbor” rule, which is intended to curb pollution that drifts to downwind states.

The high court agreed Wednesday to consider a stay in four consolidated cases brought by energy companies, trade groups and the states of Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia, the New York Times reports.

Other publications with coverage include SCOTUSblog, Law.com and the Washington Post.

“The court’s brief order did not suspend the program in the meantime or add the case to the court’s merits docket,” the New York Times reports. “Oral arguments in cases that reach the court by way of an emergency application, as in this case, are quite rare.”

Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, has said since 1971, the Supreme Court has had oral arguments on emergency applications only twice before, according to Law.com. Both cases involved challenges to the Biden administration’s COVID-19 policies, Vladeck said in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter.

The Supreme Court’s order allows the EPA case to also continue in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where opening briefs are due Jan. 26, SCOTUSblog reports. The appeals court had refused to stay the plan while it considers the challenge.

The rule required states to curb smog-causing nitrogen oxide that affects other states. Twenty-three states failed to persuade the EPA that its plans were adequate. In the litigation that followed, all seven federal appeals courts hearing challenges blocked the EPA action in 12 of those states, according to the New York Times.

Ohio has argued that mandated cuts “are potentially unachievable” and could leave the state with insufficient electrical generating capacity, according to the Washington Post.

The United States argues that imposing a stay “would impose negative health consequences and additional regulatory burdens on downwind states and their citizens—thus violating the central aim of the good neighbor provision.”

The cases are Ohio v. EPA, Kinder Morgan v. EPA, American Forest & Paper Association v. EPA and U.S. Steel Corp. v. EPA.