Case: California v. The City of Huntington Beach

This entry summarizes a case brought in California state court against the City of Huntington Beach, California for allegedly violating state housing laws, as well as a federal case that the City filed in response. 

State Case

On March 8, 2023, the Attorney General of California and the Department of Housing and Community Development filed this lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California in Orange County. The case was assigned to Judge Erick Larsh. The plaintiffs sued the City of Huntington Beach seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. They claimed that California had a housing affordability crisis and that local governments were partly responsible for an insufficient housing supply. Local governments have to adopt "housing elements," which include plans for housing supply, and these plans have to comply with state law. The plaintiffs alleged that Huntington Beach had violated the law by not adopting a compliant housing element. Specifically, the plaintiffs pointed to state laws meant to make it easier to approve and build accessory dwelling units (ADUs)—small units added on to a single-family property—as well as a state law, SB 9, which made it easier to break up residential lots into multifamily residences like duplexes. The Huntington Beach City Council had allegedly banned all ADU and SB 9 permitting. Therefore, the plaintiffs asked the court for a declaration that this ban violated state law and a writ of mandamus and injunction requiring the city to allow ADU and SB 9 projects. They also sought a monetary fine and attorneys' fees.

On March 15, 2023, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. They also filed an amended complaint a few months later, on June 9. The case was subsequently moved to the Superior Court of San Diego County and reassigned to Judge Katherine Bacal on July 6, 2023.

In response to this state lawsuit, the City of Huntington Beach filed a federal lawsuit against the plaintiffs on March 9, 2023 (see below). On November 2, 2023, the state court stayed proceedings until the federal lawsuit was decided. The plaintiffs challenged the stay because the state law that authorized suits over housing elements gives those lawsuits priority over others; however, the court held that that law did not apply to the City of Huntington Beach because it was a charter city, for which the housing law makes some exceptions.

On December 29, 2023, the plaintiffs appealed the stay to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District. Early the next year, on January 18, the appellate court reversed the decision granting the stay, holding that the California housing statute does apply to chartered cities. The City filed a petition for rehearing on January 31, 2024, but the court denied it a week later, on February 7.

After the appeal, the state trial court vacated the stay, and the case is ongoing as of March 5, 2024.

Federal Case

In response to the state lawsuit, the City of Huntington Beach filed a federal lawsuit against the Governor of California, the Southern California Association of Governments, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 9, 2023. The City alleged that California's housing laws violated the U.S. and California Constitutions by directing city housing policy and compelling certain speech from City Council members. Specifically, the City alleged that the laws violated the First Amendment; procedural and substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; the Dormant Commerce Clause; and various provisions of the California Constitution and state statutes. It also accused various California officials of fraud. The City requested declaratory and injunctive relief. The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Fred W. Slaughter.

The City moved for a temporary restraining order on March 14, 2023. The court denied the motion a week later, on March 21, holding that expedited relief was not warranted and, moreover, that the plaintiffs had not established their claims would likely succeed and there were various threshold questions that the court would have to address first, including whether it should abstain due to the state case. 2023 WL 3317067. The City filed an amended complaint later that month, on March 27.

On November 13, 2023, Judge Fred Slaughter granted motions to dismiss filed by the defendants. The court held that the City and its officials lacked standing to raise federal constitutional claims because political subdivisions of a state cannot sue over the constitutionality of that state's statutes, and public officials cannot sue merely because they do not want to enforce certain statutes. The court chose not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, so it dismissed the entire complaint. 2023 WL 8043846.

The City appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on November 22, 2023. Early the next year, on February 6, the City moved in the Ninth Circuit for a motion to stay the lower court's judgment and for emergency injunctive relief. This Ninth Circuit appeal is ongoing as of March 5, 2024.