243 Cal. App. 4th 162
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Rancho Mirage amended its municipal code (Ordinance No. 1084) to require a "Responsible Person" aged 30+ to sign a rental agreement for short-term vacation rentals (previously 21+). The ordinance requires one responsible adult but does not bar under-30 occupants.
- Brian C. Harrison, owner of a permitted short-term rental in Rancho Mirage, sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the age requirement violates the Unruh Civil Rights Act's prohibition on age discrimination in business establishments.
- The City demurred, arguing the Unruh Act does not apply to municipal legislative acts and that the ordinance is a valid exercise of police power; the City also invoked its charter-city status.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, relying on prior appellate authority holding the Unruh Act inapplicable to legislative acts and rejecting the plaintiff's reliance on a planning/zoning statute (Gov. Code § 65008) because it was not pled.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed: it held the Unruh Act applies to "business establishments," not to a city's legislative enactment, and declined to follow contrary federal district court reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Unruh Act applies to a municipal legislative act that sets an age-based rule for vacation rentals | Harrison: Ordinance 1084 effectively forces rental owners to discriminate by age in violation of the Unruh Act because short-term rentals are "business establishments." | City: A city acting legislatively is not a "business establishment" and thus not subject to the Unruh Act; ordinances within police power are permissible. | Court: Unruh Act applies to "business establishments," not to a city's legislative action; affirmed demurrer. |
| Whether Harrison may be liable under Unruh for following a city ordinance that limits access by age | Harrison: Compliance would force owners to violate state civil-rights protections. | City: Section 51(c) bars imposing liability for following a law; businesses cannot be held for adhering to legal requirements. | Court: Section 51(c) supports that entities cannot be held liable for compliance with lawful legislative directives; reinforces nonapplication of Unruh to legislative acts. |
| Whether the complaint could proceed under Government Code § 65008 (planning/zoning discrimination) | Harrison (later): The ordinance is a zoning/planning action and § 65008 prohibits age-based denial of land use; claim should be allowed. | City: § 65008 is limited to Title 7 actions; Harrison did not plead that ordinance is a planning/zoning action and raised § 65008 too late. | Court: Harrison failed to plead § 65008 in the complaint and refused to amend in trial court; no reasonable possibility to cure—demurrer without leave to amend proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marina Point v. Wolfson, 30 Cal.3d 721 (California Supreme Court) (Unruh Act applies broadly to business establishments in housing context)
- Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts, 17 Cal.4th 670 (California Supreme Court) (scope of "business establishment" interpreted broadly but exempting certain noncommercial organizations)
- Burnett v. San Francisco Police Department, 36 Cal.App.4th 1177 (California Court of Appeal) (municipal legislative age distinctions not subject to Unruh Act)
- Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of Anaheim, 187 Cal.App.4th 734 (California Court of Appeal) (city legislation not acting as a "business establishment" under Unruh Act)
- Gibson v. County of Riverside, 181 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (C.D. Cal.) (federal district court view that Unruh liability can reach governmental zoning actions; court here declined to follow it)