Quantcast

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Tuesday, June 25, 2024

Neighbors accuse each other over landscaping dispute; appeals court rules against private enforcement

State Court
D691e8d9 8172 4d73 bde7 59eb790ac607

hammer | https://www.pexels.com/

A California appellate court has ruled that private citizens cannot sue to enforce municipal ordinances, a decision that could have far-reaching implications for local governance and individual rights. The case was filed by Charles Cohen and Katyna Cohen in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, on June 5, 2024, against their neighbors Thomas Schwartz and Lisa Schwartz.

The Cohens petitioned for a writ of mandate to vacate a trial court order that allowed the Schwartzes to sue them for maintaining landscaping and hedges allegedly in violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC). The Schwartzes' complaint included four causes of action: nuisance, violation of LAMC section 12.22(C)(20), violation of LAMC section 62.129, and declaratory relief. They sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The trial court had initially overruled the Cohens' demurrer to the second and third causes of action based on Riley v. Hilton Hotels Corp., which allowed private citizens to sue for violations of municipal ordinances under Government Code section 36900(a). However, upon review, the appellate court found Riley's interpretation incorrect. The court concluded that section 36900(a) only grants city authorities—not private parties—the right to redress violations via criminal prosecution or civil action.

Justices Currey, Collins and Zukin's decision was based on an extensive review of legislative history. The original statutes from which section 36900(a) derives explicitly granted enforcement rights solely to city authorities. When these statutes were consolidated into Government Code section 36900 through Senate Bill No. 750 in 1949, no substantive changes were intended; thus, the right to enforce remained with city authorities alone.

In addition to legal arguments, public policy considerations were also weighed. Allowing private citizens to enforce municipal ordinances could lead to inconsistent application and undermine cities' ability to manage local laws effectively. This ruling emphasizes that any changes to this enforcement mechanism should come from legislative action rather than judicial interpretation.

The Cohens were represented by Rex S. Heinke and Jessica Weisel from Complex Appellate Litigation Group along with Joel Kozberg from Kozberg & Bodell. Thomas Schwartz was represented by Keith J. Turner and Justin Escano from Turner Law Firm. The case was presided over by Judge Lisa Sepe-Wiesenfeld under Case ID B330202.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News