Columbia Sussex Management, LLC v. City of Santa Monica

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 24, 2021
• Docket: 2:19-cv-09991-ODW-SK
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

JS-6 1 O 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

11 COLUMBIA SUSSEX MANAGEMENT, Case No. 2:19-cv-09991-ODW (SKx) LLC, and CW HOTEL LIMITED 12 PARTNERSHIP, individually and on behalf of all other hotel owners and ORDER DECLINING TO VACATE 13 managers operating hotels in Santa Monica, California, JUDGMENT ON REMAND 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v. 16 CITY OF SANTA MONICA, 17 Defendant. 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 20 On September 10, 2019, the Santa Monica City Council adopted Santa Monica 21 Municipal Code Chapter 4.67, including section 4.67.030(a) (the “Ordinance”), to 22 enhance the protection of hotel workers in the hospitality industry in Santa Monica. 23 (Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) ¶¶ 1, 18, ECF No. 39.) The Ordinance prevents hotel 24 employees who clean guest rooms from cleaning more than a specified square footage 25 of floor space during their scheduled shift without additional compensation. (Id. ¶ 1.) 26 Plaintiffs Columbia Sussex Management, LLC and CW Hotel Limited Partnership 27 filed this putative class action against Defendant City of Santa Monica challenging the 28 validity of portions of the Ordinance. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 62.) 1 On August 28, 2020, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ SAC with prejudice and 2 without leave to amend and issued Judgment against Plaintiffs. (Order Granting Mot. 3 Dismiss, ECF No. 52; J., ECF No. 53.) Plaintiffs appealed. (See Notice of Appeal, 4 ECF No. 54.) During the pendency of the appeal, Plaintiffs sold their interests in the 5 subject hotel, making Plaintiffs no longer subject to the Ordinance. (See Pls.’ Mem. 2, 6 ECF No. 59; Def.’s Resp. 1, ECF No. 60.) The Ninth Circuit accordingly granted the 7 City’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. (Ninth Circuit Order, ECF No. 57.) 8 The Ninth Circuit remanded the action to this Court “with instructions to 9 ‘balance the relevant equitable concerns and decide whether to vacate its judgment.’” 10 (Id. (quoting Am. Civil Liberties Union of Nev. v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1066 11 (9th Cir. 2012)).) Upon receiving the case on remand, the Court ordered Plaintiffs and 12 the City to submit briefing with their respective positions regarding issues relevant to 13 equitable vacatur. (See Min. Order, ECF No. 58.) The Court has reviewed the 14 parties’ papers and finds as follows. 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 “The ‘normal rule’ when a case is mooted is that vacatur of the lower court 17 decision is appropriate.” Masto, 670 F.3d at 1065 (citing Camreta v. Green, 18 563 U.S. 692, 712 (2011)). This is so where a case has “become moot due to 19 circumstances unattributable to any of the parties” or “where mootness results from 20 the unilateral action of” the party that prevailed in the lower court. U.S. Bancorp 21 Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 23 (1994). This default approach 22 “prevent[s] a judgment, unreviewable because of mootness, from spawning any legal 23 consequences.” Masto, 670 F.3d at 1065 (quoting United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 24 340 U.S. 36, 41 (1950)). 25 However, when the losing party “seeking relief from the judgment below 26 cause[s] the mootness by voluntary action,” they “surrender their claim to ‘the 27 equitable remedy of vacatur.’” Id. (quoting U.S. Bancorp, 513 U.S. at 24, 25). Thus, 28 in determining whether to vacate a judgment below, “[t]he principal condition to 1 which [courts must] look[] is whether the party seeking relief from the judgment 2 below caused the mootness by voluntary action.” U.S. Bancorp, 513 U.S. at 24; see 3 also Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1371 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting a district court should 4 consider “the consequences and attendant hardships of dismissal or refusal to dismiss 5 and the competing values of finality of judgment and right to relitigation of 6 unreviewed disputes.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). “[T]he party seeking relief 7 from the . . . judgment” bears the burden “to demonstrate . . . equitable entitlement to 8 the extraordinary remedy of vacatur.” U.S. Bancorp, 513 U.S. at 26. 9 Here, Plaintiffs voluntary action caused the action to become moot in that 10 Plaintiffs sold their interests in the subject hotel, thereby relinquishing their stake in 11 the controversy. (See Pls.’ Mem. 2.) Plaintiffs attempt to recharacterize the sale as a 12 result of the “vagaries of circumstance,” forced by Plaintiffs’ financial burden. (See 13 id. at 3.) However, the Court finds that the circumstances here are patently of the type 14 that fall within the exception, as it was Plaintiffs’ choice to sell their interests in the 15 subject hotel and thus forfeit their claim to the “equitable remedy of vacatur.” See 16 Masto, 670 F.3d at 1065. Plaintiffs’ argument that the Ninth Circuit “erred in 17 dismissing this case as moot” is not well-taken. (Pls.’ Mem. 3.) This Court is bound 18 by precedent of the Ninth Circuit, and particularly so by rulings that constitute the law 19 of the case. See United States v. Houser, 804 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986) (“A trial 20 court may not . . . reconsider a question decided by an appellate court.”). The Court 21 may not simply disregard the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the appeal of this matter. 22 Leaving the Judgment in vigor will cause Plaintiffs no prejudice, as they no 23 longer own the subject hotel in Santa Monica, are not subject to the Ordinance, and 24 therefore would have no occasion to “relitigat[e] unreviewed disputes.” See Dilley, 25 64 F.3d at 1371. Leaving the judgment intact will also serve the public interest, as 26 “[j]udicial precedents are presumptively correct and valuable to the legal community 27 as a whole.” See U.S. Bancorp, 513 U.S. at 26. Additionally, the City aptly notes that 28 Plaintiffs appealed only one portion of this Court’s final ruling, which resolved 1 || multiple constitutional challenges. (See Def.’s Resp. 3.) Thus, vacating the judgment 2 || in its entirety would not be appropriate in any event. 3 If. CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DECLINES to vacate the judgment. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 August 24, 2021 9 SBF A

11 OTIS D. HT, II b UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28