Judge Matz rejected the Yao Ming argument as "silly and farfetched." "If Mr. Sterling placed an ad in the Los Angeles Times announcing 'Clippers Have Signed Chinese Star Yao Ming to Five-Year Contract,' he would violate no law prohibiting discrimination. (Indeed, he would probably earn plaudits)," the judge wrote in his July 28 ruling.
Citing the city's "acute shortage of housing rental units," the judge also rejected his argument that those who have taken "a fancy" to the Korean building names would pack up and leave if the name changed. Matz also made a distinction between Koreatown, a geographic location, and the word Korean.
"Uneasy relations among different racial and immigrant groups still prevail in various sections of this city, and many residents would understandably regard the decision to place the word 'Korean' in the name of a building in a racially diverse neighborhood as a coded message: Koreans and Korean Americans are welcome and preferred; others are not."
The judge did not prohibit use of the South Korean flag, calling it a representation of American Korean Land Co., another Sterling company.
Bill Araiza, a law professor at Loyola Marymount Law School, called the ruling significant, saying it addresses the "sophisticated" form of discrimination that occurs today.
"It makes a lot of sense in the real world where there's all sorts of subliminal signaling that goes on," he said. "Discrimination today is very often subtle, because nobody or very few people today say, 'You're black so you can't come in.'
"I've got to believe that sophisticated landlords, large-scale landlords, would be paying attention to this."
The court also has prohibited Sterling from asking his tenants where they were born. According to Sterling, after the Sept. 11 attacks an FBI agent met with Sterling's controller and said the landowner should make every possible effort to learn whether his tenants were "foreign nationals."
According to court documents, the agents inquired about "three or four Middle Eastern nationals under FBI investigation" who lived in Sterling's apartment complexes.
Subsequently, at the Irolo Street property, Sterling switched to a new type of security gate that required the use of a remote-access garage door opener.
The application for the opener asked tenants to state, among other things, their place of birth and immigration status.
Rhoades called the questions a pretext for learning a tenant's race and national origin.
Fischer said collecting the information was viewed as "as a proper thing to ask in the aftermath of 9/11."
The court rejected Fischer's argument as a "sham," pointing out that Sterling did not circulate a similar questionnaire at any of his other 98 buildings. Nor did he explain, the judge said, "why they suddenly took this action in February 2003 despite having acquired the building in April 2002."
In another issue, tenants claimed that Rochelle Sterling had visited their apartments claiming to be a health inspector or some other government official. A former employee said she accompanied Rochelle Sterling on such visits and was made to document the ethnicity of the tenants.
Rhoades said the purpose of the visits was to gain access to apartments and to harass and intimidate African American and Latino tenants.
Fischer dismissed the former employee's claims as those of a disgruntled worker who has filed a separate lawsuit against Sterling.
Lawyers for tenants submitted a videotape of Rochelle Sterling at a complex, and the judge found that she did tell a tenant that she was a health inspector.
He called the allegations "troubling," and said "impersonating a health inspector may itself be unlawful in other respects." But "there is no evidence in the record that tenants of a particular race or national origin have been targeted for inspection."
The judge did not issue an injunction against the practice.
Sterling denied that he or his wife discriminated against or made derogatory comments about tenants.
"In the 40 years that I have been in the real estate business, I have never before been sued for allegedly violating the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against potential tenants based on race or national origin or otherwise," he said.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of 12 tenants, one would-be renter, and the Housing Rights Center. An elderly tenant who had been facing eviction has died since the suit was filed. Attorneys expect to select a trial date next month.