Fox Hills Canterbury Co. v. City of Culver City CA2/4

── Fox Hills Canterbury Co. v. City of Culver City CA2/4 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/23/26 Fox Hills Canterbury Co. v. City of Culver City CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR FOX HILLS CANTERBURY B342302 COMPANY, (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 24STCP00451) v. CITY OF CULVER CITY, Defendant and Respondent; MEADOWS FORWARD ACTION COMMITTEE, Intervener and Respondent. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James C. Chalfant, Judge. Affirmed. Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Kevin H. Brogan and Dean E. Dennis, for Plaintiff and Appellant.  Heather Baker, City Attorney, Christina Burrows, Assistant City Attorney, Michael Cobden, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent. Munger, Tolles & Olson and Michael E. Soloff for Intervener and Respondent. ______________________________________________ Appellant Fox Hills Canterbury Company (Fox Hills) obtained building permits allowing it to renovate aging apartment buildings in Culver City (the City). Before it completed all of the renovations, the City enacted a tenant protection ordinance requiring Fox Hills to return displaced tenants to the rental units, after renovation, with the same rights they had when displaced. A rent control ordinance would regulate permissible increases in the tenants’ rent. Fox Hills filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief seeking an exemption from the tenant protection ordinance. It also asserted that application of the ordinance constituted a regulatory taking as it completely altered its investment backed expectations. The trial court sustained demurrers by the City and intervener Meadows Forward Action Committee (the Committee) (collectively with the City, “respondents”) to Fox Hills’s operative pleading. The court found that Fox Hills had no vested right that would exempt it from the ordinance and that the takings claim was not ripe because Fox Hills had not availed itself of available City procedures for relief. We affirm. 2  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. The City’s Tenant Protection and Rent Control Laws In September 2020, the City adopted its Tenant Protection Ordinance (TPO) and Rent Control Ordinance (RCO). As relevant to this case, the TPO states that a landlord may not terminate a tenancy unless the landlord can demonstrate the termination qualifies as a for-cause or no-fault termination as defined in the TPO. (Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) § 15.09.310(B)(2).) Temporary “untenantable conditions”1 resulting from “[s]ubstantial rehabilitation” work that requires a permit from a government agency are not a valid basis for a no-fault termination. (Id. at § 15.09.330(C)(1).) If the substantial rehabilitation makes the rental unit untenantable, the landlord must provide the tenant with relocation benefits during the displacement period. The tenant remains responsible for paying rent and has the right to reoccupy his or her unit upon completion of the work with the same rights “that existed prior to the displacement.” (Id. at § 15.09.330(E).) The TPO does not have any provisions permitting landlords to apply for and receive exemptions. The RCO applies to apartment buildings that obtained a certificate of occupancy prior to February 1995. (CCMC § 15.09.21