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

1,819 chars

use policy, Schwarz, 544 F.3d at 1221, the jury here
reasonably could have found that the separation requirement
is fundamental to the City’s zoning policy governing
residential areas. Thus, the jury reasonably applied the
principle recognized in Schwarz that “ordering a
municipality to waive a zoning rule ordinarily would cause
a ‘fundamental alteration’ of its zoning scheme if the
proposed use was incompatible with surrounding land uses.”
Id (citing Bryant Woods Inn, 124 F.3d at 604).
    For all these reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial
of judgment as a matter of law on Ohio House’s reasonable
accommodation claim.
        B. California Govt. Code § 65008 Claim
    Finally, Ohio House claims that the district court erred
in denying its post-trial renewed motion for judgment as a
matter of law on its claim under Cal. Govt. Code § 65008(a).
Section 65008(a) provides that any action by a city “is null
and void” if it denies any individual or group of individuals
“the enjoyment of residence, landownership, tenancy, or any
other land use in this state” because of a protected
characteristic under the FEHA. The district held that Ohio
House’s suit under this provision is time-barred by the
statute of limitations set forth in Cal. Govt. Code
§ 65009(c)(1), which requires claims to be brought “within
90 days after the legislative body’s decision” to adopt or
amend a zoning ordinance or to enforce conditions attached
to land-use permits. See Cnty. of Sonoma, 118 Cal. Rptr. 3d
at 919 n.4. Ohio House disagrees, arguing that
§ 65009(c)(1)’s 90-day period is “applicable only to
challenges to local zoning decisions” and not “to Ohio
House’s broader cla[i]m of discrimination based on
‘administration of ordinances pursuant to any law.” Cal.
60        THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text