At Turner Law Firm, we are proud to stand at the forefront of a case that could redefine the power of everyday Californians to protect their neighborhoods and enforce the law when local governments fall short. In Cohen v. Schwartz, now before the California Supreme Court, we represent homeowners in a legal battle that raises a fundamental question: Do private citizens have the right to bring civil actions to enforce municipal ordinances?

We believe the answer is a resounding yes—and we’re fighting to ensure that right is preserved.

The Background: A Neighborhood Dispute with Statewide Implications

Our clients enjoy panoramic views of the Santa Monica Bay, Catalina Island, and the West L.A. basin—views that are now obstructed by the defendants’ hedges, which we contend exceeds the six-foot height limit imposed by the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC § 12.22(C)(20)) and violate city landscaping guidelines.

Because the City of Los Angeles failed to act on their complaint, we filed a civil lawsuit to enforce the ordinance based on Government Code section 36900(a), which states that violations of city ordinances may be “redressed by civil action.”

The Legal Issue: Who Can Enforce Local Ordinances?

The central legal question in this case is whether Government Code § 36900(a) allows private citizens—not just city authorities—to bring civil actions for municipal code violations. The statute reads:

“The violation of a city ordinance may be prosecuted by city authorities in the name of the people of the State of California, or redressed by civil action.”

This language, we argue, is clear and unambiguous. The use of the disjunctive “or” separates two distinct enforcement mechanisms: prosecution by city authorities and redress by civil action. The statute does not limit civil redress to government officials, and the legislative history confirms that this was a deliberate choice.

The Court of Appeal’s Ruling: A Step Backward

Despite this clarity, the Court of Appeal in Cohen v. Superior Court (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 706 reversed the trial court’s decision and overruled the long-standing precedent set in Riley v. Hilton Hotels Corp. (2002). In Riley, the court held that Government Code § 36900(a) expressly permits private citizens to bring civil actions for ordinance violations.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Cohen effectively strips private citizens of their ability to enforce local laws—leaving them powerless when cities fail to act. This ruling not only undermines the statute’s plain meaning but also threatens to erode public trust in the legal system.

Our Argument Before the Supreme Court

In our opening brief, we present a comprehensive argument grounded in statutory interpretation, legislative history, and public policy:

1. Plain Language of the Statute

The statute’s wording is straightforward. The phrase “redressed by civil action” is not limited to city authorities. Courts are bound to give effect to the plain meaning of legislative language unless ambiguity exists—and here, there is none.

2. Legislative History

Government Code § 36900 was enacted in 1949 to replace older laws that restricted enforcement to city officials. Notably, the Legislature removed the phrase “at the option of said authorities” from earlier versions of the law—clearly signaling an intent to broaden enforcement rights.

3. Public Policy and the Private Attorney General Doctrine

California has long recognized the importance of private enforcement of public laws. Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 codifies the private attorney general doctrine, which encourages individuals to pursue legal action in the public interest—especially when government agencies fail to do so.

4. Judicial Restraint

Courts are not permitted to rewrite statutes or insert limitations that the Legislature chose to omit. Doing so would amount to judicial legislation, undermining the separation of powers.

Why This Case Matters

This case is about more than a hedge dispute. It’s about the right of Californians to take action when their local governments won’t. Cities across the state are overwhelmed with enforcement responsibilities. If private citizens are barred from stepping in, many violations will go unchecked—leading to deteriorating neighborhoods, environmental harm, and a loss of public confidence in the rule of law.

What’s Next

We filed the opening brief on June 20, 2025. The respondents’ opposition is due by July 21, 2025. Our understanding is that the California Supreme Court typically schedules oral arguments approximately 12.5 months (about 300 days) from the completion of party briefing to oral argument.

Amicus

We invite legal scholars, public interest organizations, municipal law experts, and community advocacy groups to submit amicus curiae briefs in support of preserving the right of private enforcement under Government Code § 36900(a). Please email us at mm@turner.law if you are interested in joining to fight to access to our courts.

An amicus curiae application must be filed no later than 30 days after all party briefs (excluding supplemental briefs) have been filed or were due to be filed.

Conclusion

At Turner Law Firm, we remain committed to defending the rights of individuals and ensuring that the law serves the people it was designed to protect.