City of Costa Mesa v. Pacific Shores Recovery, LLC, et al.
Published: Oct. 30, 2020 | Result Date: Jul. 6, 2020 | Filing Date: Sep. 25, 2019 |Case number: 30-2019-01100581-CU-OR-NJC Summary Judgment – Plaintiff
Judge
Court
Orange County Superior Court
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Ashley C. Anderson
(Everett Dorey LLP)
Christopher D. Lee
(Everett Dorey LLP)
Seymour B. Everett III
(Everett Dorey LLP)
Defendant
Steven G. Polin
(Law Office of Steven G. Polin )
for Pacific Shores Recovery
Sam B. Maralan
(Much Shelist PC)
for Pacific Shores Recovery
Garrett M. Prybylo
(Much Shelist PC)
for Pacific Shores Recovery
Isaac R. Zfaty
(Much Shelist PC)
for Pacific Shores Recovery
Facts
Plaintiff City of Costa Mesa filed suit against defendant Pacific Shores Recovery, LLC and its operators, for continuing to operate sober living homes without the required conditional use permit, as required by the City's Municipal Code.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: City of Costa Mesa asserted that defendant Pacific Shores Recovery, LLC and its operators have permitted and maintained a continuing public nuisance in the City pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 731. The City further asserted that defendants' continued maintenance of the public nuisance was in direct violation of the City of Costa Mesa's Municipal Code under CMMC sections 13-17, 20-11 and 20-12.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all allegations that they permitted and maintained a continuing public nuisance.
Result
The court granted City of Costa Mesa's motion for summary judgment. The City demonstrated that defendants owned and operated noncompliant sober living homes at the subject properties without the necessary conditional use permit required to operate under the City's Municipal Code, and that defendants are continuing to operate in direct violation of the Code. Defendants did not dispute the allegations and the court noted that defendants misapprehended their burden and failed to show that a triable issue of fact with respect to any causes of action or defenses. Because the undisputed evidence supported a nuisance per se under the City's laws, and defendants failed to show any triable issues, the court found that City of Costa Mesa was entitled to judgment in its favor.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390