Short Term Rentals - Zoning & Ordinances

Useful Rulings on Restrictions on Short Term Rentals

Recent Rulings on Restrictions on Short Term Rentals

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

DISCUSSION Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of two ordinances (Nos. 6374 and 6375) adopted by the City of Anaheim pertaining to short term rentals. With the possible exception of the provisions relating to immediate access to the STR units, Plaintiffs have failed to show irreparable injury to support their request for preliminary injunction. “‘To qualify for preliminary injunctive relief plaintiffs must show irreparable injury, either existing or threatened.’” (Cohen v.

  • Hearing

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

Both properties historically were legally allowed to accommodate short-term rentals. 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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MILLENNIUM-DIAMOND ROAD PARTNERS VS DIAMOND BAR COUNTRY

Carson (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 761 (holding that the homeowners association was the prevailing party in action against unit owners regarding ability to impose fines and fees for illegal short-term vacation rentals and thus was entitled to attorney’s fees under CCP § 5675, even though the homeowners association recovered only a fraction of the damages sought).) Fees, if recoverable at all either by statute or the parties’ agreement, are available for services by an attorney at trial and on appeal.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

YAN LI VS APRIL LI

Lim Jui Yuan Cheng and Moon Management Consulting, LLC (“Moon”) failed to disclose their intent to operate short-term rentals and use the subject property to operate businesses for a profit, including social events such as parties and weddings. Yan alleges that the subject property was severely damaged during a March 25, 2017 social event. On March 15, 2018, the court sustained Plaintiffs’ demurrer to A. Lin, et al.’s cross-complaint, without leave to amend. On August 6, 2018, S.

  • Hearing

SHIVA MOSHTAEL, ET AL. VS YUVAL ZIV, ET AL.

Hs intention was to advertise and use the Property as a short-term rental venue for persons who wanted to have parties and social events. Thiel knew of this intent but did not disclose it to Plaintiffs or Shafa. Since taking possession of the Property, Ziv has used the premises to rent for party venues, renting the Property to persons whom Ziv knew or should have known are likely to create a nuisance.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ALTEFINTECH VA CALCAP HEARING ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The documents may be relevant to issue of harm if they show that Plaintiff’s use of the property for short-term rentals creates a risk of damage to the property or potential liability for Defendant as the owner.

  • Hearing

DOSSEGGER VS MERCURIO

The Court is hesitant to curtail Defendants' right and ability to earn a livelihood, especially given that the short-term rental income is necessary to maintain the subject property. It may be difficult to quantify the monetary damages associated with enjoining short term vacation rentals.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

AIMCO VENEZIA LLC VS SOPHIE HUESCA, ET AL.

As to damages, the complaint states “[p]laintiff has been damaged by [d]efendants’ willful and knowing use of the Apartment Home and Lincoln Place for unauthorized short term rentals and commercial activity[,]” without clarifying the nature of the damages. Complaint at ¶25. Defendant argues plaintiff suffered no actual damages, but argues it can recover through disgorgement or restitution of profits. This theory is not alleged.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

YAN LI VS APRIL LI

Lim Jui Yuan Cheng and Moon Management Consulting, LLC (“Moon”) failed to disclose their intent to operate short-term rentals and use the subject property to operate businesses for a profit, including social events such as parties and weddings. Yan alleges that the subject property was severely damaged during a March 25, 2017 social event. On March 15, 2018, the court sustained Plaintiffs’ demurrer to A. Lin, et al.’s cross-complaint, without leave to amend. On August 6, 2018, S.

  • Hearing

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS LANCE JAY ROBBINS PALOMA PARTNERSHIP, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

As described above, the same invasion of the same primary right (i.e. the right to do short term rentals) was raised in each of the four Ellison Actions 26 currently pending. See RJN all exhibits. Therefore, pursuant to CCP section 430.1 O(c), 27 this demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend because the same invasion of 28 Defendant's primary rights are raised in other pending actions between the same parties.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS CHARLES PETERS

Plaintiffs allege Defendant regularly rents the subject property on a short-term basis to transients in violation of the BHMC beyond the two permitted instances per calendar year, and he has persisted in his refusal to discontinue doing so. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14.)

  • Hearing

THIRD WALNUT CREEK MUTUAL

(The issue of whether to allow short-term rentals is quite controversial in some instances, but as indicated, there is no indication here of any controversy, which could mean that it was not a substantial change from the individual CC&Rs.) As to the voting totals themselves, the votes reflect super majorities of those who voted. (Looking at all of the petitions combined, 83% of those who voted, voted yes.)

  • Hearing

JANICE KROK VS CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD

Respondent’s Evidence[2] The City has been plagued by the proliferation of unpermitted short-term vacation rentals. Mick Decl. ¶9. It is difficult for City staff to check websites for unpermitted short-term rentals, investigate them, and issue a citation. Id. Short-term rentals create issues of loud noise, parking constraints, and degredation of neighborhoods. Id.

  • Hearing

YAN LI VS APRIL LI

Lim Jui Yuan Cheng (“Cheng”) and Moon Management Consulting, LLC (“Moon”) failed to disclose their intent to operate short-term rentals and use the subject property to operate businesses for a profit, including social events such as parties and weddings. Yan alleges that the subject property was severely damaged during a March 25, 2017 social event. On December 12, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants A. Lin, Han, S.

  • Hearing

AIMCO VENEZIA LLC VS ANGEL ZAPATA

Plaintiff alleges the agreement prohibited short-term rentals, the tenant was required to use the unit as a residence and not for any business purpose, use of the facilities was permitted only by Plaintiff, and a 2016 addendum prohibited subletting. (Compl. ¶¶ 12-20.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

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

The Commission staff report stated that the LCP amendment proposed by Ordinance 15–0010 “would amend the Implementing Ordinances (LIP) portion of the certified LCP in order to prohibit commercial and transient uses in residential zones (e.g., ‘short-term rentals’ or ‘vacation rentals’ would be prohibited in residential zones).” AR 550 (emphasis added).

  • Hearing

MILLENNIUM-DIAMOND ROAD PARTNERS VS DIAMOND BAR COUNTRY

Carson (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 761 (holding that the homeowners association was the prevailing party in action against unit owners regarding ability to impose fines and fees for illegal short-term vacation rentals and thus was entitled to attorney’s fees under CCP § 5675, even though the homeowners association recovered only a fraction of the damages sought).) Fees, if recoverable at all either by statute or the parties’ agreement, are available for services by an attorney at trial and on appeal.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

LUMINA V. UMINA

The maximum occupancy limit in Measure T only applies to commercial short term transient vacation rentals of homes and not generally to all tenancies and it does not limit occupancy to a familial relationship or caregiver status.

  • Hearing

LUMINA V. UMINA

The maximum occupancy limit in Measure T only applies to commercial short term transient vacation rentals of homes and not generally to all tenancies and it does not limit occupancy to a familial relationship or caregiver status.

  • Hearing

HUYNH VS. LOCKHART

Here, accepting all allegations as true they do not rise to the standard of conscious disregard and/or despicable conduct in continuing to utilize their property for short-term rentals.

  • Hearing

JANICE KROK VS CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD

The City’s Code Compliance Division issued an administrative citation (“Citation”) to Krok alleging that on January 4, 2018 she committed a short-term rentals violation at the property located at 8752 Rangely Avenue, West Hollywood, CA 90048 (“Property”). The Citation fine is $44,200, and the administrative fee is $50. The Citation ordered Krok to pay the total $44,250 fee by February 15, 2018 or late fees will be added to the base fine.

  • Hearing

THE CITY OF DEL MAR VS THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

The Motion (ROA # 38) of Respondent California Coastal Commission ("Respondent" or "Commission") to dismiss the Petition of Petitioner City of Del Mar ("Petitioner" or "City") for writ of mandamus to challenge the Commission's June 7, 2018 decision to reject and then certify with suggested modifications the City's Local Coastal Program Amendment ("LCP amendment") addressing short-term rentals ("STRs"), is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

THE CITY OF DEL MAR VS THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

The Motion (ROA # 38) of Respondent California Coastal Commission ("Respondent" or "Commission") to dismiss the Petition of Petitioner City of Del Mar ("Petitioner" or "City") for writ of mandamus to challenge the Commission's June 7, 2018 decision to reject and then certify with suggested modifications the City's Local Coastal Program Amendment ("LCP amendment") addressing short-term rentals ("STRs"), is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

HAWK VS HULETT

The Court therefore strikes the following allegations of protected activity which support the above stricken claims: (i) the allegation in paragraph 5 that "Defendant has filed multiple formal complaints with the city of Encinitas alleging Plaintiffs conducted unpermitted construction on the Residence, Plaintiffs falsely advertised the Residence on rental websites, and Plaintiffs were engaged in short-term rentals on the Residence without permits"; (ii) the allegation in paragraph 30 that "[a]fter viewing Plaintiffs

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HAWK VS HULETT

The Court therefore strikes the following allegations of protected activity which support the above stricken claims: (i) the allegation in paragraph 5 that "Defendant has filed multiple formal complaints with the city of Encinitas alleging Plaintiffs conducted unpermitted construction on the Residence, Plaintiffs falsely advertised the Residence on rental websites, and Plaintiffs were engaged in short-term rentals on the Residence without permits"; (ii) the allegation in paragraph 30 that "[a]fter viewing Plaintiffs

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.