6
ground it was not signed, and the court overruled this objection. Plaintiff also lodged objections
to specific language in defendant’s declaration, and the court ruled as follows: (1) with respect
to the lease addendum, plaintiff objected on the grounds of relevancy and lack of foundation,
and the court overruled this objection; (2) plaintiff objected to defendant’s statement that
plaintiff knew about the addendum and the court sustained the objection; (3) plaintiff objected to
defendant’s statement that the Transient Occupancy Tax Permit was the only requirement to
operate an Airbnb and the court sustained the objection; (4) plaintiff objected to defendant’s
statement that the premises are not R-1 zoned and can be used for tenancies longer than 30 days,
and the court sustained the objection; (5) plaintiff objected to defendant’s statement that there
are triable issues of fact concerning the Airbnb and the court sustained the objection;
(6) plaintiff objected to defendant’s statement that the lack of a citation by code enforcement
indicated defendant did not violate the law and the court sustained the objection; (7) plaintiff
objected to the statements that defendant did not build the loft and that she made no structural
changes to the premises and the court overruled the objection; (8) plaintiff objected to the
statements that she was cited by the city, that as owner, plaintiff was obligated to obtain a permit
or demolish the attic, that defendant was not cited, that defendant did not build the attic or the
stairway, that plaintiff did not offer relocation assistance, and that plaintiff was trying to cheat
defendant out of relocation assistance, and the court overruled the objection to all of these
statements; and (9) plaintiff objected to the statement that defendant’s use of the premises is not
illegal because she has legal and contractual permission to occupy the loft, while it is the
structure that is illegal, and the court sustained the objection.
Court’s Ruling on the MSJ/SA
On June 27, 2014, the court granted plaintiff’s MSJ and ordered plaintiff to submit a
proposed order with a statement of reasons and a proposed judgment by July 2, 2014. On
July 3, 2014, the court signed the order granting summary judgment. In pertinent part, the order
provided plaintiff “has shown that there is no triable issue of any material fact” and plaintiff’s
use of the premises as a vacation rental violated the applicable zoning ordinances. The order