PRESS RELEASE: Yash Law Group Successfully Appeals Ruling on Hotel’s Unlawful “28-Day Shuffle” Policy

Los Angeles, CA – March 25, 2026 – Yash Law Group, a dynamic law firm focusing on consumer class actions and employment litigation, and Los Angeles-based Clarkson Law Firm secured an appellate victory in Melissa I. Aerni, et al. v. RR San Dimas L.P., et al. (Case No. B341484), a case involving a hotel policy that forced guests to leave every 28 days in order for the hotel to avoid creating a landlord-tenant relationship. After the trial court in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of California denied class certification, the California Court of Appeal reversed. The landmark, published decision cleared a major hurdle for plaintiffs to prevail on class certification and created clear authority supporting class certification in similar “28-day shuffle” cases.

“An extraordinary result,” said Yashdeep Singh, Principal Attorney at Yash Law Group, following the appellate decision. “This ruling empowers the plaintiffs here and countless other victims of the 28-day shuffle to hold large businesses accountable for their unlawful policies. A single person can affect lasting change for the benefit of so many others.” Attorney Yashdeep Singh also congratulated his co-appellate counsel on the major victory: “A big thank-you to Glenn Danas and Brent Robinson of Clarkson Law Firm for believing in this just cause and their contribution to the appeal.”

Clearing the Way for Class Action Certification

In Melissa I. Aerni, et al. v. RR San Dimas L.P., et al., the plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that the defendant hotel required guests to check out of the hotel every 28 days for at least three days before they could re-register at the hotel. The policy, according to the plaintiffs, was designed to avoid creating a landlord-tenant relationship with the guests, which is triggered after 30 consecutive days of occupancy. The 28-day shuffle is illegal and deprives guests of tenant protections, such as protection against eviction without notice, requirements for habitable conditions, and limits on how and when they can be removed from the property. The plaintiffs asserted claims on behalf of themselves and other guests of the hotel for violation of California Civil Code section 1940.1, violation of California Civil Code section 52.1, negligence, and violation of the Unfair Competition Law.

The trial court denied the case from proceeding as a class action because it concluded that individualized issues regarding the claim for violation of California Civil Code section 1940.1 predominated over common ones, a prerequisite for class certification.

The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District disagreed and reversed. The Court of Appeal concluded that the court’s denial of class certification was based on legal error. Any individual issues relevant to the claim for violation of California Civil Code section 1940.1 did not predominate and, to the extent they existed, were merits-based that did not warrant denying class certification. The opinion, one of the first published in this area of law, clears the way for the plaintiffs to return to the trial court and be granted class certification.

Why This Ruling Matters

The 28-day shuffle victimizes some of the most vulnerable people in our community-unhoused people who rely on hotels as a last resort for shelter. At the time the 28-day shuffle was outlawed, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, the sponsor of this bill, found that the 28-day shuffle resulted in persistent dislocation of a disadvantaged population and caused them ongoing hardship.

With the first-of-its-kind appellate ruling in Aerni v. San Dimas, there is a more robust legal framework for victims affected by the inhumane “28-day shuffle” policies. The ruling offers guidance for litigants and courts in this novel area of the law and extends beyond the facts in the case at issue. Victims at other hotels applying nearly identical 28-day shuffle policy now have judicial guidance to pursue their claims as class action. Class certification will, in turn, mean victims can seek relief, including monetary penalties, jointly as a class.

Yash Law Group remains at the forefront in litigating cases involving the 28-day shuffle on behalf of victims throughout California.

Media contact: Yashdeep “Jesse” Singh, Esq. | Yash Law Group: Email: ysingh@yashlaw.com, Telephone: (714) 494-6244