IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO WRITS AND RECEIVERS CALENDAR Judge: HONORABLE GEORGE A. MIRAM Department County Center, Redwood City Courtroom 2F Thursday, January 10, 2018 If you plan to appear on any case on this calendar, you must call (650) before 4:00 p.m. and you must give notice also before 4:00 p.m. to all parties of your intent to appear pursuant to California Rules of Court (a)(1). Case 2:00 LINE: 1 18-CIV Title / Nature of Case COUNTY OF SAN MATEO VS. STEPHEN HARRINGTON COUNTY OF SAN MATEO STEPHEN HARRINGTON BRIAN E. KULICH MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER AUTHORIZING INCREASE TO RECEIVER S CERTIFICATE The motion for Recommendation and Order Authorizing Increase to Receiver s Certificate is DENIED without prejudice. On December 20, 2018, this court [Hon. Runde] continued this matter so that Petitioner could personally serve Defendant Stephen Harrington. The Fifth Report of Receiver, the Declaration of Trevor Axt and the Declaration of Shelia Vossough establish that although Plaintiff has made a diligent effort to serve Defendant, personal service has not occurred to date.

2 January 10, 2019 Writs and Receivers Calendar PAGE 2 2:00 LINE: 2 18-CIV ROSANA WIECKS, ET AL VS. EAST PALO ALTO RENT STABILIZATION BOARD ROSANA WIECKS EAST PALO ALTO RENT STABILIZATION BOARD JAMES D. FRANGOS ROSANA WIECKS PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE The Petition for Writ of Mandate is DENIED. The July 3, 2018 Findings and Decision issued by Respondent East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Board is supported by substantial evidence and the Board did not abuse its discretion, act unlawfully, or exceed its jurisdiction in ordering the rent refund and ongoing rent reduction until the cockroach infestation and broken refrigerator problems are cured.

3 January 10, 2019 Writs and Receivers Calendar PAGE 3 2:00 LINE: 3 18-CIV VIDA CAPITAL GROUP, LLC VS. CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO RENT STABILZATION BOARD, ET AL. VIDA CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO RENT STABILZATION BOARD BRUCE E. STANTON VIDA CAPITAL GROUP, LLC S PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE The Petition for Writ of Mandate is DENIED. There is no proof of service showing service on respondent or real parties in interest and no administrative record has been filed.

4 January 10, 2019 Writs and Receivers Calendar PAGE 4 2:01 LINE: 4 18-CIV MILLARD TONG VS. CITY OF PACIFICA CALIFORNIA, CODE ENFORCEMENT & BUILDING PLANNING DEPATMENTS MILLARD TONG CITY OF PACIFICA CALIFORNIA, CODE ENFORCEMENT & BUILDING PLANNING DEPATMENTS PRO/PER ALBERT TONG PETITIONER S MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD IN THIS PROCEEDING The motion by Petitioner Millard Tong to Augment the Record is CONTINUED to January to be heard concurrently with the Petition for Writ of Mandate. The Petition for Writ of Mandate seeks review pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure of the April 20, 2018 Decision by Hearing Officer Michael J. Perez upholding on Appeal fourteen of the sixteen Administrative Citations issued by the City of Pacifica with regard to 1 Picardo Rand Road, Pacifica, California (APN # ). The Summary of Citations and City s Case contained on Page 3 of the April 20, 2018 Decision summarizes the issues as follows: The Citation alleges that conditions on the property violate the PMC due generally to accumulations of junk and debris, inoperable vehicles, abandoned broken or neglected equipment, machinery, vehicles or appliances, unpermitted storage of recreational vehicles, hazardous materials, lack of mandatory garbage collection service and self-haul permit, construction and use of solar panels, a large horse arena, and arena viewing platform, and a kiln without necessary permits, and uses that are not allowed in the zoned Agricultural District. Of primary concern to the City are large number of occupied recreational vehicles and trailers with unpermitted sewer systems that may be contaminating ponds, creeks and ground water, creating a serious health and safety hazard to the residents. Petitioner asserts or implies, without any citation to authority or specific evidence, (1) that some of the citations may relate to conditions that existed before the property became subject to the jurisdiction of Respondent City of Pacifica; (2) that some of the citations are not applicable to the grandfathered farm and horse boarding facility operated by Petitioner; and (3) that some of the citations may be motivated by a desire by employees of Respondent City of Pacifica to harass or discriminate against Petitioner. Petitioner asserts that Augmentation of the Record is necessary to provide evidence supporting these claims that was not provided at the

5 January 10, 2019 Writs and Receivers Calendar PAGE 5 administrative hearing and was not part of the record of that hearing. California Courts have held that a city may properly enact a local ordinance to control and abate nuisance activities despite the fact that the business that would be regulated by the ordinance possessed grandfather rights that might ordinarily render it immune from compliance with local ordinances. See e.g. City of Oakland v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4 th 740, 756. Neither side has addressed whether any rights that may have been grandfathered to the subject property are affected by the citations at issue. California Courts have also held that while an equal protection violation does not arise whenever officials prosecute one and not another for the same act, equal protection prohibits officials from intentionally singling out individuals for disparate treatment on an individually discriminatory basis. (See e.g. Murguia v. Municipal Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 286, 297.) Neither side has addressed whether there is evidence that the instant citations arose from intentional disparate treatment. Petitioner is ordered to file, by January 17, 2019, a Supplemental Brief that (a) Provides the legal authority and elements of each of the above issues and the evidence supporting Petitioner s contention that such issue is applicable to each of the fourteen citations upheld by the Administrative hearing; and (b) the extent to which such issues were raised at the administrative hearing with regard to each of the fourteen citations upheld by the Administrative Hearing, whether Petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedy with regard to such issues, and whether a failure to exhaust is fatal to the effort to raise those issues now. Respondent is ordered to file a supplemental response by January 24, Failure to cite competent legal authority or to address specific evidence relating to each of the citations at issue will be deemed a waiver of that issue. POSTED: 3:00 PM

6 January 10, 2019 Writs and Receivers Calendar PAGE 6