Case Background
Share Our Selves Corporation, a non-profit health provider, had planned to expand its medical services to reach more low-income and homeless residents in Santa Ana. The organization had outgrown its existing clinic and entered an agreement to buy a large office building on North Main Street. This new facility would have added dental, pharmacy, and vision services, and created over 100 local jobs. However, the City of Santa Ana unexpectedly changed its zoning rules while the sale was pending. These new rules targeted non-profit clinics specifically, requiring them to get special permits that for-profit clinics did not need. Because the organization could not get these permits before its purchase deadline, the deal fell through.
Cause
The legal dispute centered on the City’s sudden adoption of two zoning ordinances in late 2022 and early 2023. These laws required a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for medical offices run by non-profit or government-subsidized groups in certain districts. The Plaintiff claimed the City passed these laws specifically to stop the clinic expansion. They argued the City used its power to block services for "undesirable" groups, such as the homeless and low-income Latino residents.
Injury
The organization lost its chance to buy the Main Street property and expand its healthcare mission. The group also lost more than $500,000 in non-refundable fees and planning costs spent during the purchase process. Beyond the financial hit, the community lost access to expanded dental and medical care.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiff asked the Court to declare the new zoning ordinances illegal and unconstitutional. They also sought payment for the $500,000 in lost fees and additional money for the violation of their constitutional rights.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Share Our Selves Corporation.
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Edmond M. Connor | Douglas A. Hedenkamp | Brett J. Williamson | Gabriel Castillo Laughton | Nora N Salem
Defendant(s): City of Santa Ana.
Counsel for Defendant(s): Saskia T. Asamura | Ezra D. Siegel | Carlee I. Roberts | Sonia R Carvalho | Laura A Rossini
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The organization’s lawyers argued that the City had "hoodwinked" them by secretly passing laws while the group was working in good faith with city staff. They pointed out that just weeks before the new law passed, the planning department had told them their project would only need a simple administrative review. The lawyers claimed the City rushed the new rules through to ensure the clinic would lose its property deal.
The City’s lawyers denied any wrongdoing. They argued that the ordinances were a valid exercise of the City’s power to regulate land use. They also claimed the group lacked standing to challenge certain parts of the law and that many of the legal claims were "moot" or irrelevant because of previous Court rulings.
Claims
The health provider raised several major legal claims:
Discrimination and Equal Protection: They argued the law unfairly treated non-profits differently than for-profit businesses for no good reason.
Substantive Due Process: They claimed the City’s actions were arbitrary, lacked a rational basis, and "shocked the conscience".
Constitutional Violations: They asserted the City violated their right to associate with their patients and infringed on the patients' privacy rights.
Defense
The City countered that the zoning changes applied to several types of uses, not just the Plaintiff's clinic. They stated that other non-profit clinics already operated in the area, suggesting there was no general bias against such facilities. The City also argued it had followed all proper legal procedures when passing the ordinances, including public notice requirements.
Settlement
The Plaintiff sought to have the zoning ordinances declared unconstitutional and requested damages for lost fees and constitutional violations.
Ultimately, the parties reached a formal settlement agreement to end the litigation before it reached a jury. The City of Santa Ana agreed to provide a financial payment to Share Our Selves Corporation to resolve all remaining claims and help the organization recover the financial losses incurred during the failed property acquisition.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
