San Jose Country Club Apartments v. County of Santa Clara

The County of Santa Clara (hereafter county) appeals from an order granting a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of Santa Clara County Ordinance No. NS-628 (as amended by ordinance No. NS-629) against plaintiff, San Jose Country Club Apartments. The amended ordinance (hereafter ordinance) is designed to prohibit, in the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County, discrimination in rental housing “on the basis of age, parenthood, pregnancy, or presence of a minor child,” and provides for both civil remedies and criminal penalties 1 against violators. Plaintiff, a limited partnership doing business as Oakwood Garden Apartments-San Jose South, owns a 789-unit apartment complex in an area covered by the ordinance. According to plaintiff, tihe complex has been operated since its opening as an adult residential community and has been rented exclusively to persons over age 21 having no minor children residing with them.

In granting the preliminary injunction, the trial court declared the ordinance void as (1) preempted by the combined effect of two state statutes, the Rumford *952 Fair Housing Act (Health & Saf. Code, § 35700 et seq.) now substantively reenacted as…

I respectfully dissent.

*956 In my opinion, the appropriate procedure here is not to reverse the judgment but to dismiss the appeal as moot. Since the trial court’s decisions, the California Supreme Court has decided Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 496 , 640 P.2d 115 ] which, it appears, would have a significant bearing upon both the preemption issue (see Civ. Code., § 52, subd. (e)), and the CEQA issue (see Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 277 , fin. 16 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 249 , 529 P.2d 1017 ]). The impact of that decision was, of course, not considered in the trial court and it has not been adequately briefed here. Moreover, since no appeal was taken from the injunction against the superseding ordinance, nothing we decide in this case can have any direct impact upon the current legal situation in Santa Clara County. Accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal as moot.

The County of Santa Clara (hereafter county) appeals from an order granting a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of Santa Clara County Ordinance No. NS-628 (as amended by ordinance No. NS-629) against plaintiff, San Jose Country Club Apartments. The amended ordinance (hereafter ordinance) is designed to prohibit, in the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County, discrimination in rental housing "on the basis of age, parenthood, pregnancy, or presence of a minor child," and provides for both civil remedies and criminal penalties [1] against violators. Plaintiff, a limited partnership doing business as Oakwood Garden Apartments-San Jose South, owns a 789-unit apartment complex in an area covered by the ordinance. According to plaintiff, the complex has been operated since its opening as an adult residential community and has been rented exclusively to persons over age 21 having no minor children residing with them.

In granting the preliminary injunction, the trial court declared the ordinance void as (1) preempted by the combined effect of two state statutes, the Rumford Fair Housing Act (Health & Saf. Code, § 35700 et seq.) now substantively…