How are ordinance violations enforced?

Useful Rulings on Ordinance Violations

Recent Rulings on Ordinance Violations

HAGOP TCHAKERIAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA V. TRUE HORIZONS, LLC, ET AL.

(“Coastal Act”), and § 35-169 of Article II of the County of Santa Barbara Coastal Zoning Ordinance (“CZO”). [PCC ¶2] On October 10 and 24, 2016, MBAR considered the CDP application for conceptual review by the MBAR. The Project description subject to MBAR conceptual review included habitat and vegetation restoration on portions of Parcel 004 and Parcel 024. [PCC ¶3] MPC considered and approved the CDP application on February 15, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS UNION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

"The doctrine of exhaustion of administrafive remedies requires that where a remedy before an administrative agency is provided by statute, regulation, or ordinance, relief must be sought by exhausting this remedy before the courts will act." (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 85, 99-100.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS UNION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

“The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that where a remedy before an administrative agency is provided by statute, regulation, or ordinance, relief must be sought by exhausting this remedy before the courts will act.” (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 85, 99-100.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

HACIENDA LA PUENTE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK, A PUBLIC AGENCY

However, when the language is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, we look to a variety of extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, contemporaneous administrative construction, and the statutory scheme of which the statute is a part.” (Nolan v. City of Anaheim (2004) 33 Cal.4th 335, 340.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

WORLDMARK, THE CLUB VS CITY OF ANAHEIM

Contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, the TOT Ordinance does apply because there is no definition of “other amenities” in the TOT Agreement and the TOT Agreement specifically refers to the TOT Ordinance in Paragraph 6(c). Under the TOT Ordinance, the amount of TOT due is 15% of the “rent”.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JANICE KROK VS CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD

From a code enforcement perspective, it is imperative that the penalty for violations of the City’s short-term vacation rental ordinance be sufficient to deter violators. Id. The City has a fee schedule for violations of its short-term rental ordinance. Holub Decl. ¶2, Ex. G.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

BALDOMERO ENRIQUEZ VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

“In exercising its independent judgment, a trial court must afford a strong presumption of correctness concerning the administrative findings, and the party challenging the administrative decision bears the burden of convincing the court that the administrative findings are contrary to the weight of the evidence.” Fukuda, supra, 20 Cal.4th at 817.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

NUNEZ VS. CAPPO MANAGEMENT XLVIII, LLC

For purposes of this Agreement, “Dispute” does not include a claim for workers’ compensation or unemployment compensation benefits; a claim under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended; an administrative charge before a federal, state or local governmental agency; a claim by Employer for injunctive or other equitable relief, including without limitation claims for unfair competition and the use or unauthorized disclosure of Confidential Information (as the term is defined in the Confidentiality,

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

WANDA NELSON V. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, ET AL.

An “enactment” is statutorily defined as “a constitutional provision, statute, charter provision, ordinance or regulation.” (Gov. Code, § 810.6.) The cause of action must specifically allege the particular enactment that creates the mandatory duty. (See, e.g., Washington v. County of Contra Costa (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 890.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

SERNA VS. MITCHEL

Issue 5: Administrative Exhaustion Before filing a PAGA claim, a plaintiff must provide the LWDA and the employer notice of “the specific provisions of [the Labor Code] alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violation.” (Labor Code § 2699.3(a)(1)(A).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

SERNA VS. MITCHEL

Issue 5: Administrative Exhaustion Before filing a PAGA claim, a plaintiff must provide the LWDA and the employer notice of “the specific provisions of [the Labor Code] alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violation.” (Labor Code § 2699.3(a)(1)(A).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2020

DARBY T. KEEN VS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, ET AL.

Ordinance No. 19-0007 simply added new compliance tools to facilitate enforcement efforts. AR 19-21. The new administrative and enforcement tools —penalizing advertising of STRs and imposing information-sharing obligation on platforms—do not create a new use or prohibit a previously permitted use of land, they only assist the City in achieving compliance with its preexisting prohibition to respond to the rapid increase of an illegal land use in the City.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

LANCE JAY ROBBINS PALOMA PARTNERSHIP VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

On July 8, 2019, the Office of the City Attorney transmitted a draft ordinance and report to the City Council which stated that the City Council incorporated by reference in error portions of the CFC and International Fire Code. City RJN Ex. 1. The draft ordinance cures the error by repealing LAMC section 57.108 in its entirety. City RJN Ex. 1. The City Council adopted the ordinance on August 28, 2019, and it became effective on October 21, 2019. City RJN Exs. 2-4. D.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

HAGOP TCHAKERIAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CHARLES P LABELLA, ET AL. VS DOTT NGUYEN , ET AL.

, tort claims, and claims for discrimination, claims for wrongful discharge, violations of the Family Medical Leave Act, violations of confidentiality or breaches of trade secrets, and claims for violation of any federal, state, or other governmental law, statute, regulation, or ordinance whether based on statute or common law.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

COALITION FOR AGRICULTURAL RIGHTS V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

The Urgency Ordinance also expressly disclaimed that no site would acquire any ongoing right to continue cultivating industrial hemp under the Urgency Ordinance. (Id. at § 8.) On July 16, 2019, prior to the Urgency Ordinance’s expiration, the Board of Supervisors extended the Urgency’s Ordinance through June 18, 2020. (County RFJN, Ex. B; see Gov. Code, § 65858.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

MARSHA SPECTOR VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

On March 18, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and pursuant to the March 17, 2020, Administrative Order of the Presiding Judge, the Court continued the instant motion to April 17, 2020, with no change in the briefing schedule. Counsel for Defendant was informed telephonically, and directed to give notice. On March 25, 2020, and in response to the continuing pandemic conditions, the Court continued the matter again, setting the motion for hearing on May 22, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FE&M INC VS CITY OF GLENDALE

The owner may do so, where appropriate, by a facial challenge to the ordinance, but in most cases must seek a variance if that relief is available and then exhaust other administrative and judicial remedies… The latter, an ‘as applied’ challenge to the development restrictions imposed by the administrative agency, may be properly made in a petition for writ of ‘administrative’ mandamus to review the final administrative decision (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CITY OF CLAREMONT, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS TRACY L. PHILLIPS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Legal Standard Health and Safety Code § 17980.6 reads, in relevant part, that “[i]f any building is maintained in a manner that violates any provisions of this part, the building standards published in the State Building Standards Code relating to the provisions of this part, any other rule or regulation adopted pursuant to the provisions of this part, or any provision in a local ordinance that is similar to a provision in this part, and the violations are so extensive and of such a nature that the health and

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LUNDAY-THAGARD COMPANY DBA WORLD OIL REFINING VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

The City shall prescribe by ordinance the process for purchases of materials consistent with the requirements of the Charter. Charter §380. 2. LAAC The City shall have the right and power, subject to the restrictions in the Charter, to make contracts. Los Angeles Administrative Code (“LAAC”) §10.1. All purchases of materials shall be made by the Purchasing Agent in accordance with the provisions of Charter sections 371 and 380. LAAC §9.1.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

CHIQUITA CANYON LLC VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Section 40059.3(a) similarly provides: “ An ordinance adopted by a city or county or an ordinance enacted by initiative by the voters of a city or county shall not restrict or limit the importation of solid waste into a privately owned facility in that city or county based on the place of origin.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SKOGEBO VS. COFIROUTE USA, LLC

On October 12, 2018, absent Chavez class member Sanket Thakur filed an administrative claim with OCTA. (FAC, ¶ 10.) Thakur’s claim attached the Chavez FAC and expressly referred OCTA to its allegations. (Id., Ex. 1.) On October 15, 2018, Skogebo—also an absent class member in Chavez—filed an administrative claim with RCTC. (Id., ¶ 11.) Like Thakur, Skogebo’s claim attached the Chavez FAC and expressly referred RCTC to its allegations. (Id., Ex. 2.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

BULLOCK VS. CITY OF ANTIOCH

The City of Antioch enacted an ordinance requiring that “all claims for money and damages against the city…” Here, Defendant argues the Board of Administrative Appeals’ decision became final on November 14, 2017. Although Plaintiffs allege compliance, the claims are all dated more than year after the Council’s decision. Plaintiffs allege compliance with the claim presentation requirement. (SAC, ¶¶41-43.) The City of Antioch denied the claims as untimely.

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

LUMINA V. UMINA

Administrative Permit Process and Authority of Electorate to Enact Initiatives Plaintiff argues that Measure T is an Invalid Exercise of the Initiative Process, because it interferes with the administrative permit process as Measure T is not a legislative zoning ordinance and, in fact, the electorate has impermissibly made an administrative/quasi-judicial decision related to conditional use permits for vacation house rentals, which interferes with the City’s administrative permit process.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 24     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.