In our last newsletter, we discussed a challenge to the November 2022 passage of Measure Y, the 2022 Oakland Zoo Animal Care, Education and Improvement Ordinance. As we noted previously, the court agreed with the City that because Measure Y is a voter-sponsored initiative, a simple majority vote was required to pass the measure, which it received. On June 24, 2024, the court granted the City’s motion to dismiss the remainder of Plaintiffs’ claims, ruling that Measure Y does not confer a special privilege or advantage on any corporation and the tax increase provision is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. The court entered judgment in favor of the City. Plaintiffs have appealed the Court’s ruling.

In another update from our last newsletter, the Court issued a final judgment in the matter of People of the State of California and the City of Oakland v. James H. Chau, King V. Chau, Judy N. Chau, et al., awarding the City $2,460,900 in civil penalties; $10,500 in restitution; $15,249.24 in costs; and $1,336,627.06 attorneys’ fees. The City Attorney is taking steps to enforce the judgment. The judgment relates to a lawsuit that the City Attorney filed against three landlords for tenant harassment and exploitation, and for maintaining their properties in a manner that constituted a public nuisance. The landlords, who owned and managed several Oakland buildings, disregarded the most basic rules of property ownership and management, and ignored dozens of warnings from the City over many years regarding the illegal and dangerous conditions at their properties. The Court previously appointed a receiver to take control of the properties to address urgent safety issues and protect tenants from harassment.