Updated on December 31, 2024
This seemingly technical issue stemmed from a neighborhood dispute between the Cohens and the Schwartzes, involving accusations that the Cohens’ landscaping exceeded Los Angeles Municipal Code height limits.
While the trial court allowed the Schwartzes’ claims to proceed, the Cohens challenged the broader question of whether private citizens could initiate civil action under Government Code section 36900.
What followed was a landmark ruling that overturned two decades of precedent and clarified the limits of public enforcement of city ordinances.
In the case of Cohen v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County [B330202], the California Court of Appeal was faced with a petition for a writ of mandate that centered around an interpretation of Government Code section 36900, subdivision (a). This subdivision provides that:
“Violation of a city ordinance is a misdemeanor unless by ordinance it is made an infraction. The violation of a city ordinance may be prosecuted by city authorities in the name of the people of the State of California, or redressed by civil action.” [Emphasis Added].
Section 36900 states that a violation of a city ordinance may be redressed by civil action, but does not explicitly specify who has the right to bring such an action. In the Cohen case, the court considers whether the right to sue for violation of a city ordinance is limited to city officials or whether it is expansive and includes members of the public.
At issue in the underlying Cohen matter were allegations by Thomas Schwartz and Lisa Schwartz (the “Schwartzes”) that their neighbors Charles Cohen and Katyna Cohen (the “Cohens”) violated certain provisions of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (“LAMC”) in their maintenance of landscaping and hedges on their property. The Schwartzes claims included allegations that the Cohens’ trees and plants exceeded height limits dictated by the LAMC.
In the trial court, the Cohens brought a demurrer to the Schwartzes two causes of action for violations of the LAMC. The trial court overruled the demurrer and the Cohens thereafter brought a petition for a writ of mandate to the Court of Appeal asking the Court of Appeal to vacate the order overruling the demurrer and sustain the demurrer without leave to amend.
In support of their petition for a writ of mandate, the Cohens argued that a prior relevant Court of Appeal case, Riley v. Hilton Hotels Corp. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 599, which concluded that anyone could sue for violation of a city ordinance per Government Code section 36900, subdivision (a), was wrongly decided.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the Cohens and overruled the Riley decision stating that “section 36900 does not authorize private parties to bring civil suits to enforce local ordinances.” The Court of Appeal provided several justifications for its decision to overrule Riley.
The Court of Appeal pointed to an absence in the Riley decision of an explanation as to why the phrase “redressed by civil action” means that all members of the public can file a lawsuit.
The Cohen court pointed out that the Riley court did not address the ambiguity in the statute nor did the Riley court consider legislative history that was inconsistent with its holding.
In its opinion the Court of Appeal also included a discussion of the principle of stare decisis and stated that while stare decisis, or a legal doctrine calling for courts to follow legal precedent is important, it is not a complete shield from overruling prior decisions.
According to the Cohen court, another argument in favor or overruling Riley was that it was not heavily relied on and was only cited in 20 decisions over 22 years.
In its ultimate ruling, the Court of Appeal determined that since the first clause of Section 36900, subdivision (a) states “city authorities” reading the second clause to only apply to city authorities is a reasonable interpretation.
Moreover, the Court of Appeal extensively analyzed the legislative history of the statute and determined that Section 36900’s predecessor statutes limited the right to enforce violation of of local ordinances to just city authorities, not the general public.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals determined that the legislature did not intend that Section 36900 to extend the right to enforce violations of local ordinances to all members of the public.
Interpretation of statutes can have a profound impact on the outcome of your legal matter, as seen in the Cohen case. Whether you are facing a dispute over local ordinances, land use regulations, or other legal issues involving complex statutory interpretation, having experienced legal counsel can make all the difference.
At Schorr Law, we specialize in navigating cases where the precise meaning of laws is at the heart of the matter. Our team is well-versed in crafting compelling arguments and delivering favorable outcomes for our clients.
Don’t leave your case to chance—if you’re facing a legal challenge where the interpretation of a statute could be crucial, contact Schorr Law today for a comprehensive consultation.
Let us help you protect your rights and achieve the best possible resolution. Call our office at 310-954-1877 or fill out our online form here.
Ventura County - San Bernardino County - San Diego County - Bakersfield Kern County - Orange County - San Luis Obispo County - Riverside County - The Rest of California