Correspondence - Item 21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal.App.5th 715 (2021) 286 Cal.Rptr.3d 598, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,565, 2021 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,835 71 Cal.App.5th 715 Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8, California. The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, V. VENICE SUITES, LLC et al., Defendants and Respondents. B300960 I Filed 11/15/2021 Synopsis Background: State of California brought action against apartment house owner and operator, alleging violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC), public nuisance, unfair business practices, and false advertising. The Superior Court, Los Angeles County, No. BC624350, Teresa A. Beaudet, J., granted summary adjudication in part for owner and operator, and government voluntarily dismissed remaining claims. Government appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeal Ohta, Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice, held that: [1] Court of Appeal could exercise its discretion to consider government's legal argument on uncontroverted facts, raised for first time on appeal, that short-term rentals were impliedly prohibited under permissive zoning scheme; Affirmed. Procedural Posture(s): On Appeal; Motion for Summary Judgment. West Headnotes (24) [1] Municipal Corporations 0- Proceedings concerning construction and validity of ordinances A city's interpretation of an ambiguous portion of its own code is entitled to deference, but the court independently reviews the meaning or application of the law. [21 Appeal and Error .— Review using standard applied below Appeal and Error �i— All or Part of Evidence Appeal and Error rv— Excluded or stricken evidence On appeal from grant of summary judgment, Court of Appeal employs same standards as trial court did and reviews record de novo, considering all evidence set forth in moving and opposing papers except that to which objections were made and sustained. FMCal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(c). [2] residential zone not specifying length of occupancy did [31 Summary Judgment 4-- Purpose not implicitly prevent apartment house from being used for Summary judgment is a particularly suitable short-term occupancies of 30 days or less; means to test the sufficiency of the plaintiffs or defendant's case. FMCal. Civ. Proc. Code § [3] long-term occupancy requirement for apartment house 437c(c). could not be inferred from definition limiting transient occupancy residential structure (TORS) to occupancies of 30 days or less; and [41 Appeal and Error 4— Nature or Subject - Matter of Issues or Questions [4] zoning code expressly authorizing use of apartment Zoning and Planning 0=- Preservation below house in zone for human habitation without length of of grounds of review occupancy restriction could not be read in conjunction with rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) or transient occupancy tax Court of Appeal could exercise its discretion ordinance (TOT) to require long-term occupancy. to consider government's legal argument on uncontroverted facts, raised for first time on appeal, that short-term rentals were impliedly WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1