A long-running neighborhood disagreement in Livermore, California, has escalated into a high-stakes legal battle, drawing attention to the fine line between personal expression and residential nuisance law. At the center of the dispute are James and Jannet Hays, a couple whose elaborate seasonal decorations, wind chime and recently constructed fence have become the subject of a lawsuit filed by their next-door neighbors.
The plaintiffs allege that the installations have caused significant emotional distress, disrupted their sleep, and interfered with their enjoyment of their home, prompting a claim for more than $100,000 in damages. The Hays, however, firmly reject the allegations, describing the lawsuit as an exaggerated response to benign holiday traditions that they say were never intended to harm or disturb anyone. The case has unfolded against a backdrop of years-long tension between the neighboring households, beginning shortly after the plaintiffs moved in during 2022.
What started as routine neighborly friction allegedly intensified following a property line dispute involving a driveway extension, eventually spiraling into accusations of harassment, nuisance, and municipal code violations. As the lawsuit proceeds through preliminary legal challenges and the possibility of mediation looms, the conflict highlights broader questions about how communities balance individual freedoms with collective standards of comfort and coexistence.
From Festive Displays to Legal Claims
James and Jannet Hays have lived on Camelia Drive for several years, during which time their home has become known for seasonal decorations marking Halloween, Christmas, and even Chinese New Year. According to the couple, decorating has long been a shared passion and a creative outlet, with displays carefully planned and, in some cases, constructed by hand. James Hays has described their Christmas setup as modest and whimsical, featuring a gingerbread-themed family scene intended to spread cheer rather than provoke complaint.
The plaintiffs, however, characterize the decorations in starkly different terms. In their complaint, they allege that the Hays installed between 50 and 60 outdoor lights, each rated at approximately 50 lumens, directed toward their bedroom windows. According to the filing, the lights were routinely illuminated from early evening until the early morning hours, creating persistent flickering patterns inside the plaintiffs’ home. Photographs included in the court documents purport to show the light reflections affecting the interior of the residence.
Beyond the lighting, the lawsuit also focuses on a large wind chime allegedly positioned to face the plaintiffs’ home. The neighbors claim the chime produces noise levels exceeding 70 decibels, which they argue violates Livermore’s municipal noise ordinance and constitutes a continuous disturbance. The complaint further asserts that the cumulative effect of the lights and noise caused insomnia, drowsiness, anxiety, and fear, forcing the plaintiffs to sleep on their living room couch for approximately six months in an effort to avoid the alleged disturbances.
Read : Tinsel Turmoil! Salgado Family Fined $650 Over Massive Holiday Display
The most recent flashpoint in the dispute involves a fence constructed by the Hays in November 2024. The plaintiffs contend that the fence reaches approximately 10 feet in height, surpassing the city’s six-foot limit for residential fences. They argue that the structure is visually intrusive, obstructs their view, and contributes to a sense of confinement on their property. Collectively, these elements form the basis of the nuisance claim, with the plaintiffs seeking substantial monetary damages for emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of their home.
Escalating Tensions and Competing Narratives
The Hays present a markedly different account of events, framing the lawsuit as the culmination of escalating hostility that began with a relatively minor property dispute. According to court filings and statements from James Hays, tensions rose after the couple extended their concrete driveway, inadvertently crossing the property line by between one and three inches. The Hays acknowledge the encroachment but say it was promptly addressed and the offending concrete removed once the issue was identified.
Despite the corrective action, relations between the neighbors reportedly continued to deteriorate. James Hays has stated that he sought a civil harassment restraining order against his neighbor, though the request was ultimately dismissed. He views the dismissal as evidence that the conflict has been exaggerated and that legal remedies are being pursued where informal resolution might once have sufficed.
Read : Unforgettable Hamburg: Dive into the Heart of Northern Germany’s Jewel
Regarding the specific allegations, the Hays dispute both the severity and intent described in the complaint. James Hays has argued that ambient traffic noise in the area is significantly louder than the wind chime cited in the lawsuit, and that the plaintiffs could mitigate light exposure by closing blinds or curtains. He also notes that a fence of approximately seven and a half feet already separates the properties, suggesting that claims of visual intrusion and entrapment are overstated.
For Jannet Hays, the decorations carry a deeply personal significance. She has said that decorating is something she anticipates each year and that it became especially meaningful following a recent miscarriage. According to her account, creating festive displays provided a source of comfort and a way to bring joy to others during a difficult period. From her perspective, the lawsuit has transformed what was once a positive and healing activity into a source of stress and financial strain.
The couple estimates that defending against the lawsuit has already cost them approximately $80,000 in legal fees, a figure that underscores the high personal stakes involved. Despite the mounting expenses, they maintain that they are unwilling to abandon their holiday traditions or concede to what they view as unreasonable restrictions on the use of their own property.
Legal Strategies and Broader Implications
As the case moves forward, the legal arguments have begun to take shape. The Hays have filed a demurrer, a procedural objection asserting that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken as true, they fail to meet the legal threshold required to sustain a valid cause of action. In essence, the demurrer challenges whether the plaintiffs’ claims, as pleaded, amount to a legally cognizable nuisance under California law.
The plaintiffs, through their attorney, have declined to comment beyond the contents of the complaint but are opposing the demurrer, indicating their intent to proceed with the case. The court has reportedly encouraged both sides to consider mediation, reflecting a common judicial preference for resolving neighbor disputes outside the courtroom when possible. Mediation could offer a path to compromise, potentially addressing concerns about lighting angles, noise levels, or fence height without the need for prolonged litigation.
Beyond the immediate parties, the dispute has drawn broader attention because it touches on issues familiar to many homeowners. Seasonal decorations, property improvements, and noise concerns are frequent sources of neighborhood conflict, yet lawsuits seeking six-figure damages remain relatively rare. The outcome of the case could offer insight into how courts balance subjective claims of emotional distress against objective standards such as municipal codes and established nuisance law.
At its core, the Livermore lawsuit underscores the fragility of neighborly relations and the speed with which disagreements can escalate when communication breaks down. While the legal system provides a forum for resolving such conflicts, the financial and emotional costs for both sides are evident. As the Hays and their neighbors await further judicial decisions or potential mediation, the case serves as a reminder that even seemingly small disputes over lights, sounds, or fences can have far-reaching consequences when left unresolved.