By Jorge Casuso

June 22, 2026 -- The owner of a key entertainment venue on the Santa Monica Pier is threatening to sue the City -- and top officials in their individual capacities -- if a long-delayed lease is not approved this month.

Sean Ahaus, owner of the California Roadhouse, claims the hotel workers union, UNITE HERE Local 11, has had an undue, and illegal, influence in crafting a lease for the City owned property, according to a closed session item on Tuesday's agenda.

The threat of litigation comes nearly two months after the City Council unanimously approved lease terms that included a last-minute amendment inserting the terms of the City's union-backed recall and retention ordinance.

Ahaus notes the ordinance was approved after the lease was negotiated for the vacant space at 256 Santa Monica Pier and claims the terms violate "areas of labor relations that Congress intended to be left to the 'free play of economic forces.'"

"The bottom line is they're telling me who I have to hire, how long I have to keep them, who I can promote or not promote," Ahaus told The Lookout.

"If I don't do this, there's a 99 percent chance I'll be sued by the union," said Ahaus, adding that "the lease has many requirements and other things that aren't clearly defined."

The threatened legal action centers on a December 19 meeting of representatives of the Roadhouse, the union and the City and arises out of "illegal labor collusion, coercion, violations of federal labor preemption doctrines, and potential civil rights violations under color of state law," according to a June 14 letter from Ahaus to City officials.

During the meeting, the union representative "explicitly stated" the City had entered into an agreement with the union "to completely block, deny, or refuse to execute any commercial lease with the Company unless the Company surrenders its statutory hiring discretion and agrees to hire a specific pool of individuals," the letter states.

"Specifically," Ahaus wrote, that meant hiring "the entire displaced workforce that was employed at the subject location approximately one year prior, who were union members.

"The Union representative further stated that the City agreed it would never lease to the Company unless all of these specific former workers were hired, leaving the Company with zero hiring discretion," Ahaus said, adding that "the City official present did not dispute, deny, or correct this statement."

The meeting took place some six weeks before the Council approved a worker retention ordinance City officials determined did not apply to the Roadhouse, which entered negotiations more than eight months before the ordinance was approved.

The ordinance is "applicable to the lease on a going-forward basis," staff wrote in a report to the Council when it approved the lease terms at its April 28 meeting.

"This approach is consistent with how ordinances are generally applied and case law, particularly given there are consequences for violation of the ordinance, including monetary damages," staff wrote.

"California courts have rejected attempts to apply ordinances retroactively when doing so would impose new liability for conduct occurring before enactment."

Despite staff's warning, Councilmember Ellis Raskin proposed an amendment that inserted language into the lease insuring the "terms of worker recall and retention be consistent with our ordinance."

The amendment was unanimously approved with no legal clarification or discussion.

In his June 14 letter, Ahaus demands the "preservation of evidence and Electronically Stored Information (ESI)" from January 1 to the present "regarding the commercial lease negotiations for the property."

Ahaus also requests all related internal City communications, as well as external communications with the union, including emails, text messages, call logs, and written correspondence.

In addition, the information request includes meeting and calendar records, including handwritten and digital notes, and financial and campaign records of "political or campaign contributions" made by the union to any elected official or candidate for office in the City.

"To avoid unnecessary litigation," Ahaus requests a formal, written statement within ten (10) business days of the date of the June 14 letter.

The statement should confirm or deny whether the City "has conditioned, or intends to condition, the execution of the Company's lease upon the mandatory hiring of a historical pool of former workers, to the exclusion of the Company's statutory hiring discretion."

Negotiations for the seemingly routine approval of "price and terms of payment" for the lease has dragged on since October 20, when the Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board voted to recommend that the Council lease the space to the Roadhouse.

UNITE HERE Local 11 threatened legal action, claiming the Pier Board had not given proper notice for the meeting.

The union also mounted a campaign that included demonstrations at the former Rusty's Surf Ranch site, where it was organizing workers when the business shut down in December 2024.

On December 11, the union intensified its public pressure during a seasonal posada that began at the shuttered site and called on the City "to ensure that fired workers have an opportunity to return to work."

Four days later, on December 15, the Pier Board rescinded its formal action taken at the October 20 meeting and voted again to approve the Leasing Committee's recommendation to select the Roadhouse.

On December 19, the meeting in question took place involving City, union and Roadhouse representatives, and on January 27, the Council took up the Roadhouse lease during the closed session.

The Council took up the lease three more times -- at Council meetings on February 24, March 10, and April 14 -- before finally approving the terms of the amended lease on April 28.

While the Council declared a win-win that night, the last-minute amendment delayed the negotiations for nearly two more months and now threatens to unravel what the City expected was a done deal.

In addition to taking up the "significant exposure to litigation" from the Roadhouse during closed session Tuesday, the Council will once again discuss the ongoing negotiations over the terms of the lease.

Editor's note: This article had been updated to clarify Sean Ahaus' quote in paragraph 6 by adding "the lease has many requirements and other things that aren't clearly defined."