Bona Law Defends Property Rights Against Santa Monica Overreach
July 6, 2026
Author: Joseph Trujillo
Bona Law Defends Property Rights Against Santa Monica Overreach
Bona Law leads the defense of a prominent Santa Monica landowner, Mr. Andrew Enayati, in an action brought by the City of Santa Monica in the Los Angeles Superior Court, People of the State of California v. Enayati, et. al., 26-SMCV-00397(LA Super). In it, Bona Law, on Mr. Enayati’s behalf, challenges a city ordinance designed to unlawfully restrict property rights and expand the reach of local governments in violation of state law. The city ordinance at issue, Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 6.22, prohibits Santa Monica landlords from renting their units on a medium-term or pre- furnished basis (among other restrictions). In its January 2026 complaint, the City attempts to enforce these restrictions against Mr. Enayati. At core, the City contends that, because Mr. Enayati met the free-market demand of tenants looking for medium-term, pre-furnished rentals in Santa Monica, he violated Section 6.22 and, by extension,California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code § 17200) and False Advertising Law (Business & Professions Code § 17500). It appears that the City’s action is a first-in-kind application of the UCL and FAL, imposing a high-water mark in how local governments may contort state competition laws for purposes of aggrandizing their power and, potentially, signaling how they intend to weaponize these laws going forward.
In Mr. Enayati’s demurrer opening brief, Bona Law advances several attacks showing that the City’s action fails as a matter of law. Chief among them, the demurrer shows that Section 6.22 is preempted by the Costa Hawkins Act, a California state law that “protects landlords against any restraint—direct or indirect—that (i) limits the landlord’s ability to set rent or (ii) financially penalizes the exercise of that right.” The City expressly alleges that Mr. Enayati “could dramatically increase [his] profit by converting long-term rent-controlled rentals . . . into [medium-term] rentals for transient visitors who turn over frequently,” effectively pleading directly into Costa Hawkins preemption and straight out of court.
The opening brief also shows that state and municipal zoning protections extend grandfathering protections critical to the case. The demurrer explains that Section 6.22, which is, in fact, a zoning restriction, is invalid because it “impermissibly omits an exemption for lawful preexisting uses.” Indeed, “California law is clear that ‘the rights of users of property as those rights existed at the time of the adoption of a zoning ordinance are well recognized and have always been protected.’” But given that the City “admits[] and cannot dispute[]” that Mr. Enayati rented the challenged properties on a pre-furnished, medium basis before Section 6.22’s enactment, there is no question “Mr. Enayati may continue to use the subject properties as pre-furnished, medium-term rentals,” thus precluding the City’s claim of liability.
The opening brief further demonstrates that Section 6.22 is legally ineffective because the City failed to comply with the threshold requirements of the Coastal Act, which is a state “comprehensive statute governing land use in California’s coastal zone.” As described in the demurrer, “[a] local government’s failure to secure approval from the Coastal Commission before enacting a regulation that modifies the permissible uses in the coastal zone renders such regulation ineffective and unenforceable.” Because “there is no indication that the City obtained approval” from the Coastal Commission prior to its adoption, Section 6.22 is invalid.
As its final legal attack, the opening brief establishes that the City Council lacked the authority to regulate Section 6.22’s pre-furnished rental restriction. Rather, the Santa Monica City Charter vests the Rent Control Board with the “exclusive authority” to regulate “rent-related matters ‘independent of and without interference from the City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney.” Because “the City Council unlawfully encroached on the exclusive authority of the Rent Board,” Section 6.22 is, for yet another reason, invalid.'
The opening brief concludes that, “[e]ven putting aside Section 6.22’s invalidity, the City fails to proffer facts or a cognizable legal theory that is sufficient to state a claim against Mr. Enayati under the Unfair Competition Law [] or False Advertising Law.” Critically, the City’s allegations “eliminate[] any possibility that the public was likely to be deceived by [the subject] leases or Mr. Enayati’s rental practices.” And “because California law expressly protects Mr. Enayati’s right to rent on a medium-term and pre-furnished basis,” the City cannot, consistent with the California Supreme Court’s decision in Cel- Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163 (1999), “recast Mr. Enayati’s exercise of that right as a violation of the UCL’s unfair prong.”
The City’s opposition brief only made matters worse for it. As put in Mr. Enayati’s reply, the opposition “fails to engage Mr. Enayati’s opening brief.” Instead, the City “mischaracterizes the law, avoids key issues, and ignores its complaint.” Perhaps most remarkably, the City altogether abandoned its complaint’s theory of harm, shifting now to “focus on an unspecified class of renters purportedly deprived of long-term rental opportunities.” But, the City’s midstream pivot only “adds to the defects in its claim” because “having abandoned its theory that the [medium-term renters who contracted with Mr. Enayati] qualify as victims at issue, the City is left with a measure of harm ($18 million) that says nothing about the unidentified renters purportedly denied the opportunity to rent long-term from Mr. Enayati.” This disconnect—coupled with the City’s necessary concession that the challenged rental practices “enhance[es] competition”—further renders the City’s action dead on arrival.
The Honorable Judge Edward B. Moreton, Jr. has scheduled oral argument on the demurrer for Thursday, July 9, 2026. Bona Law partner Joseph Trujillo serves as lead counsel for Mr. Enayati, with founding partner and attorneys Cansu Gunel, Aaron Lawrence, Sabri Siraj, and Jarod Bona playing instrumental roles in the demurrer briefing. Aaron Gott is also an active member of the team.