A judge has dismissed an appeal of a $180,000 fine imposed by the city of Las Vegas against a homeowner for allegedly renting his home through Airbnb without a required city license.
District Judge Nadia Krall on May 13 set aside a petition for judicial review filed on behalf of Xin Tao. The judge agreed with the city that Tao did not file in a timely manner under a state law, saying he had 25 days after the city approved the large fine when he filed it 29 days afterward, according to court documents.
Andrew Bao, attorney for Tao, said that he had to discuss the matter with his client before providing a comment on the ruling.
The matter concerns Tao’s house at 2220 Glen Heather Way in 2021, when the city’s Code Enforcement Department investigated an anonymous complaint that the home had been used for short-term rentals without a mandated city business license, according to the city’s motion to dismiss Tao’s petition.
The department received nine complaints about the residence and performed 11 inspections, city lawyers stated.
Based on a city-requested subpoena of its records, the short-term rental service Airbnb arranged for people to rent from Tao’s home, near Oakey Boulevard and Rancho Drive, going back to 2021, the Review-Journal reported on Jan. 23.
Bao, in the petition, claimed that the city at first in September 2023 informed Tao he would be fined $2,132, but later determined that the home had been illegally rented for 360 days, between August 2021 and September 2023 and at $500 per day assessed his penalty at $180,000 as of Oct. 5, 2023.
After the Code Enforcement Department ordered him to cease and desist from short-term rentals in August 2021, Tao claims that he had complied and stopped the rentals and then entered into a two-year lease with a tenant with a stipulation that no short-term rentals would be permitted, based on Bao’s filing.
During the next two years, the city never informed Tao that he faced the fine for illegal short-term renting beyond the $2,132, according to Bao.
Tao appealed the $180,000 fine to the City Council, which voted unanimously to uphold the fine on Jan. 17 and place a lien in that amount on Tao’s home, according to the city’s filing.
However, when Tao’s case was filed asking the court for judicial review, it cited NRS Chapter 233B, which pertains to judicial review of administrative decisions under “agencies of the Executive Department of the State Government” instead of the correct law, NRS 278, which governs reviews of the city planning and zoning decisions, city lawyers argued.
Under NRS 278, such a filing must take place within 25 days of the City Council’s decision, but since it was filed 29 days after, “the petition was untimely” and must be dismissed, city lawyers argued.
Krall agreed with the city, stating that “(a)s the time period for filing a petition for judicial review is jurisdictional and mandatory, Petitioner’s failure to timely file his Petition leaves this Court without subject matter jurisdiction and the Petition must be dismissed.”
Contact Jeff Burbank at jburbank@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0382. Follow him @JeffBurbank2 on X.