EvilCorporations.com | Corporate Accountability Project
🏨 Tenant Rights Violation
Red Roof Inn Forced Vulnerable Residents Out Every 28 Days to Evade Tenant Law
A California appellate court reversed a class certification denial, finding that hundreds of low-income long-term residents were systematically stripped of tenant protections through a deliberate policy of manufactured transience.
🔴 HIGH SEVERITY
TL;DR
The Red Roof Inn in San Dimas, California ran a deliberate scheme to kick out long-term residents every 28 days, forcing them to sleep in their cars or find last-minute alternative lodging for three nights before returning. The sole purpose was to prevent residents from crossing the 30-day threshold that would have granted them basic tenant rights: protected from illegal eviction, entitled to habitable conditions, and shielded from retaliation. A hotel executive admitted on the record that the policy was designed to avoid creating a landlord-tenant relationship. California’s appeals court ruled this was exactly the predatory practice the law was written to stop, and sent the class action back to move forward.
These were not tourists or vacationers. These were people living in their only home. Demand that economy hotels stop treating poverty as a loophole.
200+
Guests forced out after exactly 28 days
1,700+
Potential class members estimated
50+
Guests who checked out and immediately reregistered after 72 hours
134
Hotel rooms used as long-term housing
$500
Civil penalty per violation under CA law
4+ yrs
Duration of known policy violations (2018 to present)
⚠️ Core Allegations: What They Did
Deliberately Engineering Homelessness to Dodge Tenant Law
Core Allegations · 6 points
▾
| 01 | The hotel enforced a universal 28-day maximum stay policy on all guests since at least November 2018, requiring every guest to acknowledge in writing at check-in that they could not stay longer than 28 consecutive days. | high |
| 02 | When guests reached 28 days, the hotel required them to completely vacate the property and stay away for a minimum of three days before being allowed to reregister. This was not a coincidence; the three-day gap was calibrated to reset the legal clock. | high |
| 03 | A hotel representative testified at deposition that a purpose of the policy was to avoid creating a landlord-tenant relationship with guests. The company said the quiet part out loud under oath. | high |
| 04 | Named plaintiffs Melissa Aerni and Katherine Atsaves were forced to check out and sleep elsewhere (typically in their vehicle or another motel) five separate times between June and November 2022, returning each time after the mandatory three-day exile. | high |
| 05 | The hotel advertised on Craigslist in the “apartments, housing for rent” section as an “extended stay” property with weekly rates of $427, signaling it understood and marketed to people seeking permanent housing. | med |
| 06 | Some guests had lived at the hotel for more than five years, cycling through the mandatory 28-day reset repeatedly, demonstrating that this was not a short-term lodging business but a permanent housing operation exploiting a legal gray zone. | high |
Profit Over People: Monetizing Vulnerability
Structural exploitation · 5 points
▾
| 01 | The hotel collected rent from long-term residents for years while simultaneously denying them the legal status of tenants, capturing the economic value of housing while offloading all legal responsibility for providing it safely. | high |
| 02 | By maintaining “transient occupancy” status for all residents, the hotel blocked tenants from accessing protections requiring plumbing, heating, and electrical services to be maintained in good order, meaning residents had no legal recourse if conditions deteriorated. | high |
| 03 | The hotel principal testified that the policy was also intended to avoid lengthy eviction proceedings, meaning the company was using manufactured transience as a substitute for due process. Residents could be removed without cause, notice, or any legal hearing. | high |
| 04 | The hotel charged weekly rates ($427/week) consistent with long-term housing costs, not transient hotel rates, capturing premium revenue from residents with no housing alternatives while denying them the rights that come with a tenancy. | med |
| 05 | The hotel never applied for a conditional-use permit for single-room occupancy, which would have legally permitted long-term residential use but would also have triggered regulatory oversight and resident protections the company wanted to avoid. | med |
Manufactured Homelessness: The Human Cost
Resident harm · 5 points
▾
| 01 | Plaintiffs were forced to sleep in their vehicle for three-day stretches between stays. For people with no other housing, the 28-day policy did not just interrupt a hotel stay; it manufactured repeated, predictable episodes of homelessness. | high |
| 02 | The hotel provided amenities consistent with permanent housing: telephone, television, sink, shower, tub, lockable door, microwave, refrigerator, and on-site coin-operated laundry. Guests could receive mail and packages at the hotel address. This was home, in every practical sense. | med |
| 03 | Some guests listed the hotel’s address as their primary residence on registration cards, and the hotel did not prohibit this practice, confirming it knew the hotel was functioning as permanent housing even while legally classifying residents as transients. | high |
| 04 | Residents who had lived at the hotel for years had no right to store belongings while forced out, no guarantee their room would be held for them, and no legal recourse if anything was missing upon return. Each 72-hour exile was an exercise in engineered precarity. | high |
| 05 | The class is estimated to include over 1,700 individuals, meaning this single 134-room economy hotel manufactured homelessness for thousands of people over a span of years, through a policy that was deliberate, documented, and admitted to in testimony. | high |
Regulatory Failures: How the Law Was Gamed
Legal exploitation · 5 points
▾
| 01 | California Civil Code Section 1940.1 was enacted specifically to stop the “28-day shuffle,” yet this hotel ran the exact scheme the law targeted for over four years without regulatory intervention. | high |
| 02 | The hotel exploited statutory ambiguity around how to define a “residential hotel” and what percentage of non-transient guests triggers protections. Because the Legislature left this threshold undefined, the hotel operated in a gray zone with impunity while residents bore all the risk. | med |
| 03 | The trial court initially denied class certification based on a misreading of the statute, requiring each individual plaintiff to prove the hotel was their personal primary residence. The California Court of Appeal reversed this ruling, finding it was a hotel-wide inquiry, not an individual one. | med |
| 04 | The appellate court explicitly called on the California Legislature to fix the ambiguities in the residential hotel statute, acknowledging that the law’s current vagueness leaves trial courts “to guess what standards apply” and leaves residents legally unprotected in the meantime. | med |
| 05 | The only civil penalty available under Section 1940.1 is $500 per violation. For a hotel running this scheme across hundreds of guests over years, a $500 fine per incident functions not as a deterrent, but as a minor cost of doing business. | high |
Corporate Accountability Failures
Structural impunity · 4 points
▾
| 01 | The policy ran for at least four years before this litigation reached an appellate ruling. Absent private plaintiffs willing to sue, the scheme would likely have continued indefinitely. | high |
| 02 | Defendants argued aggressively against class certification at every stage, relying on a legal strategy designed to force each of 1,700 residents to sue individually, a practical impossibility for low-income plaintiffs with no resources for individual litigation. | high |
| 03 | The case has been in litigation since November 2022, with appeals extending into 2026. Four-plus years of legal delay while the policy may remain in operation means the harm to current residents continues as the lawsuit proceeds. | med |
| 04 | No individual executives have faced personal accountability. The liability falls on the corporate entities RR San Dimas, L.P. and Mountain High/Holiday Hill Corporation, insulating the decision-makers who designed and implemented the policy. | med |
🕐 Timeline of Events
Nov 2018
Hotel’s 28-day maximum stay policy is confirmed to be in active enforcement. The class action period begins from this date.
Jun 2022
Named plaintiff Melissa Aerni begins her first documented 28-day stay. She and co-plaintiff Katherine Atsaves begin cycling through the forced checkout-and-return process.
Jun–Nov 2022
Plaintiffs complete five separate 28-day stays, each followed by three nights sleeping in a vehicle or alternative motel before being permitted to return to the hotel.
Nov 2022
Plaintiffs file a putative class action against RR San Dimas, L.P. and Mountain High/Holiday Hill Corporation alleging violations of Civil Code Section 1940.1, the Bane Civil Rights Act, negligence, and unfair competition.
Apr 2024
Plaintiffs move to certify a class of all individuals who stayed at the hotel and were forced out after 28 days between November 2018 and the present. Defendants’ own records confirm 200+ guests forced out after exactly 28 days; plaintiff sampling suggests over 1,700 class members.
2024
Trial court denies class certification. The court finds the class is numerous, ascertainable, and that plaintiffs are adequate representatives, but rules that each class member must individually prove the hotel was their primary residence, making common proof impossible.
Mar 25, 2026
California Court of Appeal, Second District, reverses the denial of class certification. The court rules the trial court misread the statute: whether the hotel is “residential” is a hotel-wide question, not an individualized one. The case is remanded for further proceedings.
Apr 15, 2026
Court modifies its opinion and denies the hotel’s petition for rehearing. The reversal stands. The class action moves forward.
💬 Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
Hotel admits the policy’s purpose on the record
Core Allegations
“A representative of the hotel’s general partner testified that a purpose of this policy is to avoid creating a landlord-tenant relationship with guests.”
💡 This is the hotel’s own representative admitting, under oath, that the 28-day policy was not about hotel operations but about legally stripping residents of tenant protections they would otherwise be entitled to.
QUOTE 2
Second admission: avoiding eviction proceedings
Corporate Accountability Failures
“A hotel principal testified at his deposition that the policy was intended, in part, to avoid lengthy eviction proceedings.”
💡 The hotel admitted it used the 28-day reset to bypass due process entirely. Residents could be removed at will, with no legal notice, no hearing, and no recourse.
QUOTE 3
The Legislature’s stated purpose for the law the hotel violated
Regulatory Failures
“For others, hotels provide a last resort. Recognizing this reality, the legislature has provided that guests who spend more than 30 days in a ‘residential hotel’ are to be afforded the same legal protections as a tenant who can pay for more traditional housing.”
💡 California law explicitly recognized that economy hotels are the last line of shelter for the most vulnerable residents. The Red Roof Inn exploited exactly the gap this law was written to close.
QUOTE 4
Court confirms the 28-day policy targeted all guests
Core Allegations
“The hotel has enforced a maximum 28-day stay policy that applies to all guests.”
💡 There were no exceptions. Every resident, regardless of how long they had lived there or how vulnerable their housing situation, was subject to the same forced eviction cycle.
QUOTE 5
Plaintiffs forced to sleep in their vehicle
Manufactured Homelessness
“Each time their 28-day maximum was reached, plaintiffs checked out of the hotel and stayed elsewhere, typically in their vehicle or at another motel, for three days before checking back into the hotel.”
💡 This is manufactured homelessness, engineered with legal precision. The hotel forced residents into their cars on a scheduled, recurring basis to protect its own liability exposure.
QUOTE 6
Court calls on Legislature to fix statutory gaps
Regulatory Failures
“We urge the Legislature to rectify these ambiguities so trial courts will not be left to guess what standards apply to cases like this one.”
💡 Even the appellate judges acknowledged the law has gaps that allow this kind of exploitation to continue. The legislature has known about this problem since 1990 and has still not fully closed the loopholes.
QUOTE 7
Hotel marketed itself as long-term housing on Craigslist
Core Allegations
“The hotel is advertised on Craigslist as an ‘extended stay’ property with weekly rates of $427. These advertisements are posted in the ‘apartments, housing for rent’ section of Craigslist.”
💡 The hotel recruited long-term residents by advertising in housing listings while simultaneously maintaining a policy designed to deny those same residents any housing rights.
💬 Commentary
❓ Is this lawsuit legitimate, or just opportunistic litigation?
▾
This case has survived extensive scrutiny. The California Court of Appeal, one of the most respected appellate courts in the country, reviewed the record and reversed the trial court’s denial of class certification. The hotel’s own representative testified under oath that the policy was designed to avoid tenant protections. This is not a frivolous lawsuit; it is a legal challenge to a documented, admitted scheme that targeted some of the most vulnerable housing-insecure people in Southern California.
❓ Why does staying 30 days matter legally?
▾
Under California law, guests who remain in a residential hotel for 30 or more consecutive days transition from “transient” status to tenant status. That shift unlocks meaningful protections: the hotel must maintain plumbing, heating, and electrical services in good working order; residents can repair uninhabitable conditions and deduct costs from rent; and residents cannot be evicted without proper legal process, including notice and the right to challenge the eviction in court. The 28-day policy was precision-engineered to keep residents one day short of that threshold forever.
❓ Who are the people this policy actually harmed?
▾
The record describes people who used this economy hotel as their only home, sometimes for years. These were not travelers passing through. They received mail there, listed it as their address, paid weekly rates, and returned month after month after being forced to spend three nights elsewhere. The $427 weekly rate amounts to over $1,700 per month, paid by people with no other housing options, for a room that came with no legal protections whatsoever. These were working poor, housing-insecure residents of San Dimas who had no bargaining power and no alternative when the hotel handed them a form to sign acknowledging they would be forced out every 28 days.
❓ Is the 28-day shuffle a common practice across the hotel industry?
▾
It is common enough that California passed a law specifically to stop it in 1990, and common enough that the 2004 amendment strengthened that law. The practice is particularly prevalent in economy hotels and extended-stay properties, which disproportionately serve low-income renters, people leaving incarceration, domestic violence survivors, and others with no access to traditional rental housing. The Red Roof Inn case is not an anomaly; it is a documented example of a widespread strategy used by budget hotel operators to extract housing revenue without incurring housing obligations.
❓ Why did the trial court initially rule against the tenants?
▾
The trial court made a legal error: it concluded that each individual plaintiff had to prove the hotel was their personal primary residence to qualify as a class member. This interpretation would have made class certification practically impossible because it would require individual inquiries for each of potentially 1,700 people. The appellate court ruled this was wrong. The question of whether the hotel qualifies as a “residential hotel” is about the building as a whole, not about each resident’s personal circumstances. The trial court’s error effectively served the hotel’s legal strategy by making it impossible to hold the company accountable at scale.
❓ What can I do to prevent this from happening again?
▾
Several actions make a real difference. First, contact your California state legislators and demand they close the statutory ambiguities the appellate court identified: define what percentage of non-transient guests makes a hotel “residential,” and clarify how “primary residence” is determined. Organizations like the California Apartment Association and tenants’ rights groups like Tenants Together track these legislative fights closely. Second, support legal aid organizations that represent low-income tenants; this case was only possible because plaintiffs had lawyers willing to litigate it for years. Third, if you know someone living in an extended-stay hotel or motel who has been forced out under a 28-day policy, connect them with a tenants’ rights attorney. Many do free consultations. Finally, share this case. Public pressure on budget hotel chains to voluntarily stop this practice has real effects on corporate reputation and behavior.
❓ What happens now that the class action has been revived?
▾
The case returns to the Los Angeles Superior Court for the trial judge to reconsider class certification under the correct legal standard. If the class is certified, over 1,700 residents may pursue claims for the $500 civil penalty per violation, plus attorney fees. The case will then proceed to full litigation, including discovery and potentially trial, where the hotel will have to defend its policy on the merits. The appellate court’s ruling does not guarantee a win for residents; it means they get the chance to fight the case as a group rather than being forced to sue individually, which would have been financially impossible for virtually all of them.
You can find the source information about this case by clicking on this link: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/118244789.html
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
