SAN FRANCISCO (Northern California Record) — A group of residential hotel owners recently scored a victory when a state appeals court found in their favor against San Francisco's attempts to lengthen required stays in short term rentals.
"We reverse the superior court's order denying plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the 2017 amendments on the ground that plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail," California's First District Court of Appeal said in its 12-page decision issued Oct. 15. "We remand the case for a determination of the balance of hardships."
Justice Henry E. Needham Jr. wrote the appeals court's decision in which Justice Barbara J.R. Jones and Justice Mark B. Simons concurred.
Residential hotel owners filed suit in San Francisco County Superior Court in May of last year to block the 2017 amendments aimed at making it harder for the residential hotel owners to rent rooms to tourists and other short-term renters. The city's legislation, passed by the board of supervisors the previous February, extended minimum stays for single-rooms from one week to 32 days for most rentals and established penalties and enforcement within San Francisco.
The legislation amended a previous section of the city's administrative codes under its Hotel Conversion Ordinance (HCO), which had allowed for shorter stays in residential hotels.
Plaintiffs San Francisco SRO Hotel Coalition, Hotel des Arts and Brent Haas argued the legislation was an unlawful taking under the state's Constitution, but San Francisco Superior Court denied their request for a preliminary injunction. The appeal soon followed.
The city argued that the preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the 2017 amendments to the HCO was inappropriate, saying the different hotel owners represented by plaintiffs wouldn't be similarly situated. The city argued that inverse condemnation claims would involve challenges to the 2017 amendments, as opposed assessments based on each hotel owner's situation.
The appeals court declined to consider those arguments.
"While these may be factors for the trial court to consider, remand is appropriate so it can consider in the first instance the balance of the hardships," the appeals court said in its decision.