How are ordinance violations enforced?

Useful Rulings on Ordinance Violations

Recent Rulings on Ordinance Violations

SHEETZ V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

In finding that a residential hotel conversion and demolition ordinance (HCO) is not subject to the Nollan/Dolan test, because the HCO does not provide City staff or administrative bodies with any discretion as to the imposition or size of a housing replacement fee, the City did not single out plaintiffs for payment of a housing replacement fee and the HCO is generally applicable legislation in that it applies, without discretion or discrimination, to every residential hotel in the city, an appellate court stated

  • Hearing

KIAN MORADZADEH VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Article III, section 370 specifically provides “Every contract must be approved by the City Attorney as to form, except for contracts or classes of contracts involving consideration reasonably valued at less than an amount set by ordinance.” (L.A. Charter, § 370.)

  • Hearing

GREGORY LUCAS VS CITY OF POMONA

In finding that the ordinance did not require environmental review under section 15183, Wal-Mart Stores held: “None of the physical changes advocated by Wal-Mart as reasonably foreseeable are peculiar to the Ordinance in the sense that those changes are “characteristic of only” the Ordinance or belong exclusively or especially to the Ordinance. Rather, the Ordinance is at least twice removed from those physical changes.

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

In finding that the ordinance did not require environmental review under section 15183, Wal-Mart Stores held: “None of the physical changes advocated by Wal-Mart as reasonably foreseeable are peculiar to the Ordinance in the sense that those changes are “characteristic of only” the Ordinance or belong exclusively or especially to the Ordinance. Rather, the Ordinance is at least twice removed from those physical changes.

  • Hearing

LION EYE FARMS INC ET AL VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

The administrative appeals have since been consolidated and assigned for hearing by Administrative Law Judge Eric Sawyer from the Office of Administrative Hearings. (Defendants’ RJN, Exs. 16, 17, 18, 20.) Mr. Sawyer has no affiliation with County. (Somait Dec., ¶18, Ex. Q.) The fact that the administrative appeals have been consolidated and assigned to an independent administrative law judge and will not be heard by Ms.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

FRANK ZIMMERMAN COLLECTIVE VS CITY OF VISTA

The third argument appears to be that Plaintiff's prior allegations admitted that "no established administrative procedure for challenging or appealing" the City's denial of the marijuana license application existed. (ROA 207, p. 11:7-8, citing ROA 1, ¶ 2.) The operative word in that argument is that no "established" administrative procedure existed, which, as set forth above, misses the mark.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BEDFORD, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ET AL.

Applying principles of conflict and obstacle preemption, the appellate court concluded that the “city may not justify its ordinance solely under federal law [citation], nor in doing so invoke federal preemption of state law that may invalidate the city’s ordinance,” and thus the trial court erred as a matter of law in concluding otherwise. (Id. at p. 763.)

  • Hearing

STEPHANIE SMITH, AS TRUSTEE OF THE LOVELY FAMILY TRUST VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, A STATE AGENCY, ET AL.

City of Rolling Hills Estates, (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 370, 376 (concluding that a view protection ordinance is “closely related” to a zoning ordinance and therefore allowed a substantial amount of vagueness). Courts have upheld land use ordinances similar to section 30251 against vagueness challenges. See Ross v.

  • Hearing

TOLARA GROSS VS EDUCATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

In the event of any administrative or judicial action by any agency or third party that adjudicates any controversy covered herein. Employee or Employer shall not be permitted to receive a double recovery.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PATRICK CRAIG, AS TRUSTEE VS CITY OF STOCKTON, ET AL.

This Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the administrative record, but does not take judicial notice of the truth of the “facts” that might be deduced from document. (Cal. Evid. Code §452(d); Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 886-887, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 877.) Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 (a) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a), no further written order is necessary.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

PATRICK CRAIG, AS TRUSTEE OF THE PATRICK D. CRAIG AND KATHRYN A.CRAIG REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST VS CITY OF STOCKTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ET AL.

This Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the administrative record, but does not take judicial notice of the truth of the “facts” that might be deduced from document. (Cal. Evid. Code §452(d); Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 886-887, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 877.) Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 (a) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a), no further written order is necessary.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

SCHMID V. TWO ROCK FIRE DEPT

The “matters listed” in sections 65901 and 65903 include “conditional uses or other permits when the zoning ordinance provides therefor” and “variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance.” (§ 65901, subd. (a); see also Travis v. County of Santa Cruz (2004) 33 Cal.4th 757, 766, fn. 2, [Sections 65901 and 65903 “provide for hearing and decision on, and administrative appeals concerning, applications for variances, conditional use permits, and other permits.”)

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Gary Nadler via Zoom

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

PROFESSIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

There are exceptions to the exhaustion requirement, including “when pursuit of an administrative remedy would result in irreparable harm, when the administrative agency cannot grant an adequate remedy, and when the aggrieved party can positively state what the administrative agency's decision in his particular case would be.” (Ibid.) Exhaustion of administrative remedies is also required before a petitioner may pursue a traditional writ of mandate pursuant to Section 1085.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

632 N PALM DRIVE, LLC VS ADAN PENA, ET AL.

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 14.2 Was any PERSON cited or charged with a violation of any statute, ordinance, or regulation as a result of this INCIDENT? If so, for each PERSON state: a) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON; b) The statute, ordinance, or regulation allegedly violated; c) Whether the PERSON entered a plea in response to the citation or charge and, if so, the plea entered; and d) The name and ADDRESS of the court or administrative agency, names of the parties, and case number.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1516 HOBART INVESTMENTS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

On December 11, 2018, the City passed Ordinance 185931(the “Ordinance”), effective July 1, 2019. The Ordinance prohibits all short-term rentals (rentals for 30 consecutive days or less) of residential units in the City, except for limited home sharing. The City issued a citation alleging violation of the Ordinance on March 11, 2020. Since the properties are historic buildings, their historical legal use and occupancy are preserved pursuant to the California Historical Building Code (“CHBC”).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

EDDIE RANKIN, III VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

No. 14.2: Was any PERSON cited or charged with a violation of any statute, ordinance, or regulation as a result of this INCIDENT? If so, for each PERSON state: the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON; (b) the statute, ordinance, or regulation allegedly violated; (c)whether the PERSON entered a plea in response to the citation or charge and., if so, the plea entered; and (d) the name and ADDRESS of the court or administrative agency, names of the) parties, and case number.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

YORK POINT VIEW PROPERTIES LLC VS CITY OF RANCO PALOS VERDES

The City asserts that no quasi-adjudicatory decision has been made that would require application of administrative mandamus and it notes that York Point cites no authority supporting its claim that the court should apply administrative mandamus. Opp. at 13. The court agrees with the City.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DAVID S. MURANSKY, ET AL. VS THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY, INC., ET AL.

(Settlement Agreement ¶VI) · "Released Claims" means any and all claims, actions, causes of action, rights, suits, defenses, debts, sums of money, payments, obligations, promises, damages, penalties, attorney's fees, costs, liens, judgments, and demands of any kind whatsoever that each member of the Settlement Class may have or may have had in the past, whether in arbitration, administrative, or judicial proceedings, whether as individual claims or as claims asserted on a class basis, whether past or present

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DARLA WALTERS VS LEE AIR COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

Administrative charge of discrimination” is a term of art commonly used to refer to the complaint filed with these administrative agencies. The term does not limit such complaints to discrimination. (See, e.g., Muhammad v. Sams Club (E.D. Cal., Dec. 15, 2014, No. 2:14-CV-0213-TLN-KJN) 2014 WL 7150254, at *1 (noting that plaintiff “filed an administrative charge of discrimination based on … retaliation”).) Plaintiff has failed to show that this provision limited her right to bring administrative actions.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PETITION OF MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS INC

The parties are directed to arrange for pickup of the administrative record not later than October 30, 2020. _______________ *Immediately behind the petition, still within ROA 1, is a memorandum of points and authorities well in excess of the page limits contemplated by CRC 3.1113(d). **Typically, at least in the San Diego Superior Court (SDSC), the administrative record is lodged, not filed.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

PROTECT OUR PRESERVES INC VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

No ordinance that is either proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the legislative body of the city without submission to the voters, or adopted by the voters, shall be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original ordinance. (Elec. Code, § 9217.)

  • Hearing

710 AND 712 ARDMORE, LLC VS MARK ROTH & DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE

Id., ¶49. 712 Ardmore has violated the zoning ordinance in many respects.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

JENNIFER ROBERSON VS MANUELA MARTIN-MORA

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on August 29, 2019, alleging seven causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; (2) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (3) Negligent Maintenance of Premises; (4) Maintenance of Nuisance; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”); (6) Constructive Eviction; and (7) Relocation Assistance per LA Municipal Ordinance.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

4741 SC LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Petitioner’s other reply arguments either ignore the plain language of the relevant statutes/ordinance and makes policy arguments that are not persuasive and not grounded in any legislative history or other evidence. (See Reply 4:16-5:7.) The court interprets the statutes and ordinance as written. Petitioner’s policy arguments should be directed at the Legislature or City Council.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 28     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.