A federal judge has tossed out a “negligent misrepresentation” claim in a lawsuit filed by a Marin (California) City couple that claimed their home appraisal was lower than market value based on their race. The ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney stripped the suit of the claim against a San Rafael appraiser, according to a report from the Marin Independent Journal.

The judge ruled the plaintiffs, Paul Austin and his wife, Tenisha Tate-Austin, failed show how their reliance on the alleged misrepresentation guided their decisions in seeking a mortgage based on that appraisal.

The Austins, who are Black, sued appraiser Janette Miller of Miller and Perotti Real Estate Appraisers in federal court for alleged race discrimination after an appraisal of their home in February 2020 came back $455,000 lower than an appraisal done in March 2019, according to the article.

The negligent misrepresentation claim stemmed from the couple’s allegation the appraisers misrepresented that they were providing an unbiased appraisal of the home and that the Austins reasonably relied on the representations in attempting to secure a mortgage loan with favorable terms.

The judge disagreed.

“Nothing suggested the Austins believed the representations in the Miller Defendants’ appraisal report were true,” Chesney wrote in the ruling.

The Austins sought the appraisal because they wanted to take advantage of lower interest rates and obtain additional funding to complete home improvements. Miller, who conducted the second appraisal, is named as a defendant in the suit along with AMC Links LLC, which hired her to do the job at the request of the Austins’ mortgage broker.

Paul Austin said he intended to see the case through.

“There are eyes on this story,” he said. “Despite their efforts to try and throw the whole thing out.”

Liza Cristol-Deman, a Bay Area attorney representing the Austins, said there are still six claims pending, the article stated. The Austins have contended that the appraisal violated the Fair Housing Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the California Unruh Act, which provides protection from discrimination, and the Unfair Competition Law.

“We disagree with the judge’s decision on the claim for negligent misrepresentation, but we are committed to pursuing our core claims of housing discrimination,” she said. “These claims remain in play.”

The case was scheduled for a settlement conference, which was held on Sept. 14, Cristol-Deman said.