The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)

Citation: The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)
Parent Document: The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2024-12-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10287865/the-ohio-house-llc-v-city-of-c... ↗

Full Text

1,098 chars

incentivized a “significant increase in the number of single-
and multi-family homes being utilized as alcohol and drug
recovery facilities for large numbers of individuals.”
    “Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the
[City], there is sufficient ‘evidence adequate to support the
jury’s conclusion’” that the City did not unlawfully interfere
with Ohio House’s right to provide housing for disabled
individuals. Morris, 104 F.4th at 1145 (citation omitted)
(quoting Johnson v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 251
F.3d 1222, 1227 (9th Cir. 2001)). A reasonable jury could
have concluded that the City enacted its zoning ordinances
and took enforcement action against Ohio House to pursue
legitimate municipal goals. See Reed v. Lieurance, 863 F.3d
1196, 1211 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[J]udgment as a matter of law
is appropriate when the evidence presented at trial permits
only one reasonable conclusion.” (quoting Torres v. City of
Los Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008))). The
district court’s explanation for why it properly denied Ohio
House’s motion is exactly right:

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text