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

1,995 chars

Govt. Code § 65008 (b)(1)(B)(ii). As the district court
explained, “Ohio House argues that it is not challenging a
‘decision’ governed by § 65009,” namely the Ordinances’
enactment and the denial of its conditional use-permit, “but
rather ‘the exercise of municipal code enforcement power to
cite, fine, and compel the closure of a dwelling.’”
    “We review a district court’s determination of the
applicable statute of limitations de novo.” Stanley v. Trustees
of Cal. State Univ., 433 F.3d 1129, 1134 (9th Cir. 2006). And
we agree with the district court that Ohio House’s claim is
subject to § 65009’s 90-day limitations period. Despite Ohio
House’s contentions to the contrary, it is effectively
challenging the City’s zoning ordinances on their face based
on alleged defects in the ordinances themselves. See Cnty. of
Sonoma, 118 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 924–25 (explaining that despite
plaintiff’s claim that it was making a facial and as-applied
challenge, its claim was truly “facial in nature,” because it
was based on an “alleged defect . . . in the [o]rdinance itself,
not in the manner or circumstances in which it [was] being
applied.”). Ohio House seeks an injunction enjoining
enforcement of the City’s zoning ordinances and a
declaration that the ordinances “are invalid and void
pursuant to the Fair Housing Act and Fair Employment and
Housing Act.” This is a challenge to the facial validity of an
ordinance, not an as-applied challenge of a final adjudicatory
decision triggering its own 90-day statutory limitations
period. Cal. Govt. Code § 65009(c)(1)(E).
    Ohio House provides no legal or factual support for its
theory that the City’s “administration” of ordinances is
something other than a facial challenge or an as-applied
challenge of a “final adjudicatory decision.” Indeed, Ohio
House does not point to anything other than the ordinances
themselves as a source of purported injury. See San Diego
              THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA                61

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text