Lucy Vang Hoang and Tony Hoang, a couple from California, have initiated legal action against White Swan Castle in Granite Bay, alleging that their wedding venue’s air conditioning malfunctioned during their ceremony, creating unbearable heat for guests. The couple’s experience has spurred claims of negligence that have extended beyond discomfort, with their overall enjoyment of the day severely hampered.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/bride-and-groom3-041526-1689d70ea43243fa8bd9b98f84b242ab.jpg)
The couple had invested nearly £60,000 in their wedding, which took place in August. Given the sweltering temperatures, the inadequacy of the venue’s climate control reportedly made them and their guests feel as though they were “cooking alive.” They have highlighted issues not just with the heat but also with the venue’s audio equipment, which malfunctioned at critical moments during their wedding events.
Lucy shared her enthusiasm for what she envisioned to be a grand celebration, stating her aspirations for an extravagant wedding. However, her enthusiasm took a back seat as temperature concerns and technical difficulties overshadowed the special occasion. The couple had chosen White Swan Castle based on Lucy’s initial discovery of the venue on social media, following which they booked a tour. During this visit, they raised concerns about capacity and air conditioning, and they were assured by the venue’s operator, Maryam Mohsenzadeh, that their needs would be met.
As the wedding day dawned, temperatures soared into the 90s Fahrenheit (about 32 degrees Celsius). The couple’s pre-ceremony preparations were marred by sweat and discomfort, which set an uneasy tone for the day. Despite earlier assurances regarding the air conditioning, the couple and their guests found themselves in an oppressive environment that did not improve even after they sought assistance from on-site staff.
The situation escalated further as the couple prepared for their ceremony. While Tony walked down the aisle, the audio system malfunctioned, cutting out during significant moments of their vows. This disruption prompted Tony to request that the officiant proceed without the microphone to help him feel more present with Lucy during this pivotal part of their wedding.
As the reception unfolded, the couple claimed that the venue remained stifling, with guests beginning to express feelings of suffocation. Despite the venue’s directive to keep windows and doors closed to aid cooling efforts, the heat reportedly became unbearable. Tony shared his dismay at the prospect of spending such a significant sum only to feel humiliated in front of their family and friends, noting the distress experienced by elderly relatives, including his 97-year-old grandfather.
Following the wedding, the Hoangs attempted to communicate their grievances to Mohsenzadeh, who initially displayed sympathy but subsequently became unresponsive to their calls and messages. After seeking resolution unsuccessfully, the couple escalated the matter by submitting complaints to the Better Business Bureau. They now find themselves pursuing a claim in small claims court, seeking £8,000 in damages.
Further complicating the situation, the couple claims that White Swan Castle is withholding their £2,100 security deposit, citing various alleged damages incurred during the event. The venue has also defended itself against claims of inadequate cooling, stating that they are unable to regulate temperatures due to the building’s structural design, a claim that adds an unusual layer to the ongoing dispute.
In a twist to the narrative, Placer County officials confirmed that White Swan Castle does not have the necessary permits to host commercial events, contradicting the venue’s operations. It has been reported that a notice of violation was issued to the property owners concerning a previous event, suggesting a broader disregard for regulatory compliance.
As the couple’s legal battle unfolds, the initial small claims hearing has been pushed to a later date at the request of the venue owner. A new court date has been set for July 2026, a timeline that leaves the couple facing an extended period of uncertainty regarding their legal proceedings.
The incident raises questions about the responsibilities of venue operators and the expectations couples have when planning significant life events. As Lucy and Tony pursue their claim, their story highlights the potential pitfalls of selecting a venue without thorough vetting or legal assurance of compliance and service delivery.