Cupp
Cupp v. County of Sonoma
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
I. BACKGROUND
17 A. Facts Alleged in the First Amended Complaint 18 The following facts are taken from the FAC, ECF No. 49, except where otherwise stated. 19 AE ex rel. Hernandez v. Cnty. of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2012). 20 In 2017, the County enacted a Code Enforcement Enhancement Program (“CEEP Policy”). 21 ECF No. 49 at 2. Under the CEEP Policy, County Code Enforcement Inspectors have discretion 22 to determine the amount of a landowner’s fines and penalties for local code violations. Id. at 3. 23 Plaintiff Cupp owns the property located at 4640 Arlington Avenue, in the city of Santa 24 Rosa, California. ECF No. 49-1 at 3. On February 15, 2019, County Code Enforcement Inspector 25 Andrew Smith entered and took photographs of Cupp’s property without a warrant (“2019
27 1 Although the FAC is entitled “[Proposed] First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Incident”). ECF No. 49 ¶¶ 30–34. During that inspection, the County determined that Cupp had performed remodeling on his property without a permit in violation of the Sonoma County Code.2 ECF No. 49-1 at 25. Cupp then received two letters titled “Civil Penalties Due and Payable.” Id.…