_____________________
_____________________
By Brian Hews
Publisher | Follow X
June 2, 2026
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has handed the City of Pico Rivera a significant early victory in its legal battle against operators of a controversial housing operation at the Epic Hotel, a case that has exposed how approximately 150 recuperative-care clients were moved into the city before officials were notified.
The dispute centers on the Epic Hotel at 4335 Rosemead Blvd., where Safe Haven Property Management entered into an occupancy agreement on March 27 to house individuals recovering from hospital stays, many of whom were homeless or experiencing housing insecurity.
What happened next triggered one of the fastest-moving legal battles in recent Pico Rivera history.
Within days, city officials, code enforcement officers, sheriff’s deputies, firefighters and county representatives were inspecting the property. By April, Pico Rivera had filed suit, obtained a temporary restraining order and launched an aggressive legal challenge that ultimately resulted in a preliminary injunction against the operation.
At the center of the controversy is an admission from Safe Haven representative Ari Stock that city officials should have been consulted before the operation began.
In an April 1 email to Pico Rivera Mayor Gustavo Camacho that later became part of the court record, Stock wrote: “I want to start by saying this clearly, we should have come to you first, and I’m sorry that we didn’t.”
That admission became a key piece of a case in which Pico Rivera argued that a large-scale housing and recuperative-care operation had been launched without obtaining required licenses and approvals.
According to court filings, Safe Haven utilized motel rooms to provide temporary lodging for individuals recently discharged from hospitals. Many guests were described as homeless, near homeless, or housing insecure. Stock stated that stays generally lasted less than 30 days and were often paid through California’s CalAIM program, a Medi-Cal initiative designed to help vulnerable patients recover after hospitalization.
City officials maintained the issue was never about helping vulnerable residents. Instead, they argued the operation was functioning outside the motel’s approved use and without the business licenses and permits required under Pico Rivera law.
“Defendants had the ability to comply with the law and chose not to,” city attorneys argued in court filings.
Judge Joseph Lipner ultimately agreed with the city on several key issues and granted a preliminary injunction, concluding Pico Rivera was likely to prevail on important licensing and zoning claims.
The ruling represents a significant win for City Hall and City Attorney Arnold Alvarez-Glasman, whose office moved quickly after learning of the operation.
The city argued that Safe Haven was operating a separate business without first obtaining a business license and that the use of the property had evolved beyond what was authorized for a traditional motel.
Court filings also revealed escalating concerns about public safety. Pico Rivera attorneys alleged significant gang activity associated with the facility and reported that a known violent gang tagged the property with threatening graffiti after the court issued its temporary restraining order.
One of the more surprising developments came from the California Department of Social Services, which conducted an unannounced inspection after receiving complaints from the city. According to court documents, state investigators interviewed 42 guests and concluded allegations that the property was operating as an unlicensed care facility were “unsubstantiated.” Investigators reportedly found residents were generally independent and capable of handling their own daily activities.
Even so, the court determined that licensing and zoning questions remained substantial enough to justify injunctive relief.
The ruling allows Pico Rivera to continue pursuing enforcement of its municipal code while the broader lawsuit moves forward.
The case is also raising larger questions that extend far beyond Pico Rivera.
Court records indicate many guests were placed through hospital discharge programs connected to California’s CalAIM system. Yet key questions remain unanswered, including which hospitals, healthcare providers, managed-care plans, or public agencies were responsible for sending roughly 150 recuperative-care clients to the motel in a matter of weeks.
For now, however, Pico Rivera officials are celebrating what they view as a validation of the city’s insistence that organizations must comply with local laws before launching major housing or recuperative-care operations within city limits.
The lawsuit continues, and the next phase could reveal much more about who funded the placements, who coordinated the referrals, and whether similar operations exist elsewhere in Southern California.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
