Portland Renter Claims Her Cat Lunar Deserves Freedom, Judge Steps In

A Cat-Friendly Apartment? The Legal Battle Over Emotional Support Animals

Holladay Court, a single-story apartment complex in Northeast Portland, advertises itself as “Cat Friendly.” But for tenant Ruby Noble, this label has become the center of a legal battle that highlights the complexities of housing laws and emotional support animals.

Noble moved into the 16-unit complex in mid-June 2025. A month and a half later, she signed an agreement with her landlord allowing her to keep an emotional support animal — Lunar, her 2-year-old, 8-pound domestic short-haired cat with a bluish-black coat. The agreement stipulated that Lunar would be licensed with current vaccinations and remain under Noble’s control when outside her unit in the complex’s communal courtyard.

According to Noble, Lunar is microchipped, wears an AirTag with a bell on her collar, and is trained to respond to her commands. In early May, the property manager confirmed that Lunar was complying with the agreement and that the company had no issue with her “roaming freely around the property.” At the time, the company reiterated that animals at the property are required to be under their owners’ control when outside but it was okay for Lunar to wander the property if she wore a collar with a bell.

Then came the eviction notice.

On June 25, the management company sent Noble a termination notice threatening to evict her and end her lease unless she kept Lunar on a leash at all times when outside. The letter alleged that between June 22 and 25, Lunar was seen outside Noble’s apartment multiple times without being under her direct control “and left unattended for extended periods of time.”

Other residents in the complex complained that the cat had been using the apartment’s alcove as her personal litter box, attacking birds and nearly getting “eaten herself” by a coyote.

The management company received multiple complaints regarding Lunar, along with photos and video evidence, according to Lisamarie Harrison, KBC Management’s assistant portfolio manager. The letter directed Noble to correct the violations or face eviction as of July 30.

Noble, 40, enlisted animal rights lawyer Geordie Duckler to take her case to court. Duckler filed a lawsuit against KBC Management in federal court in Portland, alleging the threatened eviction violated Noble’s rights under the Fair Housing Act to have an emotional support animal for her disability.

He filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent Noble’s eviction and to preserve Lunar’s freedom to roam the Holladay Court premises under Noble’s watch. The new leash requirement appears nowhere in the lease or the signed agreement for the animal and would “fundamentally destroy” Lunar’s value to Noble in assisting with her disability, Duckler wrote in a court filing.

The property manager has subjected Noble to “alarm and significant distress,” which can only be stopped by a formal court restraining order, Duckler argued in a sworn declaration.

In response, the management company owner Karen Levin told the judge in a sworn declaration that two months after Noble moved in with her cat, Noble submitted a letter stating she needed an emotional support animal to help her deal with depression and anxiety. The animal helps her get out of bed in the morning, while providing comfort and care to her and improves her sleep, the letter said.

Noble’s therapist described Lunar as trained. “Its behavior suggested it was not,” Levin countered in her declaration. The company also questioned if Noble’s therapist was active in the state as a licensed social worker, noting she listed a Texas address with the Oregon Board of Licensed Social Workers.

Levin noted that the company’s animal assistance agreement Noble signed required her to control Lunar when the cat is outside her apartment. It also said the cat “may not use the Rental Property for waste.”

A neighbor sent an email to the property manager in May and June with the subject line: “Lunar, Coyote, Birds oh my…” The neighbor complained that Lunar’s repeated presence had become a nuisance and “an invasion” of their outdoor space. The cat frequently entered and remained in their backyard and porch area, occasionally used an alcove area as a litter box and hid under their porch waiting to pounce on birds.

He asked that Lunar be kept under her owner’s watch and not allowed to freely roam the property. “We ask that our boundaries and outdoor space be respected and that we no longer be expected to shoo, chase away or otherwise interact” with Lunar, the email said.

In May, the neighbor started documenting when Lunar wandered onto their property: “5-1 @ 9:30am - Lunar Outside, in Alcove, no owner, door closed; 5-1 @3:30pm - Lunar outside by our feeder, walked her down the path, again no owner, door closed.” Then things escalated on May 2, when a coyote chased Lunar. The neighbor stepped between the animals to protect the cat and chased off the coyote.

“Lunar is free and roaming, seen using the alcove as a litter box … attacking birds, and almost getting eaten herself,” he wrote.

KBC Management officials said they tried to work the problem out informally with Noble, encouraging her to keep watch on her cat outside her unit or put a leash on it. When she failed to do either, the company sent the eviction notice.

“Having a disability does not give somebody the right to avoid their contractual responsibilities nor harm the rights of others,” argued attorney W. Gregory Lockwood, for KBC Management.

Duckler, Noble’s lawyer, countered that allowing Noble to remain in her apartment, “along with her harmless cat,” would outweigh any harm to KBC Management before a judge can hold a full evidentiary hearing on the matter.

But U.S. District Court Judge Amy M. Baggio ruled based on the court records submitted. This week, she denied Noble’s motion to block the management company’s actions.

The judge found no reason why leashing Lunar would harm the cat’s role as an emotional support animal. Noble did not offer any evidence “why free range for Lunar is necessary to afford Plaintiff equal use and enjoyment of the dwelling,” Baggio wrote.

“To the extent outdoor time for Lunar is important for Lunar’s well-being and by extension Lunar’s ability to redress Plaintiff’s disability, there is no indication why a leash undercuts this purpose of outdoor time,” she wrote.

The judge said the matter could be resolved quite easily: with a leash for Lunar.

“The rule requiring that service animals be kept under control at all times is a reasonable one,” Baggio wrote. “Exempting [the plaintiff] from that rule is not a reasonable accommodation.”

“The Court expects that if Plaintiff secures Lunar via a leash or other means while Lunar is outside of the apartment, because such conduct would constitute an ‘instant’ cure, Defendant would then decline to move forward with eviction proceedings.”

As of Thursday, Noble continued to reside in her Weidler Street apartment. She declined to open the door when a reporter visited.

Another resident at the complex, when told of the legal battle, said: “It sounds like the most absurd thing in the world.” He asked not to be named to avoid upsetting his neighbors.

Noble’s lawyer declined comment Friday, saying he and his client are in settlement talks with the landlord.

Share :