• Plaintiff operates a mobile home park. Plaintiff alleges that the city orally promised to renew his mobile home park permit but ultimately refused to renew the permit. Plaintiff filed an action on grounds that the permit was wrongfully denied.

  • Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants to enforce deed restrictions recorded against the subject property by Defendants’ predecessors-in-interest. The prior owners illegally demolished a five-unit building that was subject to the rent control laws and constructed a 16-unit apartment building. The new building was developed in violation of law and in response, the City of Santa Monica refused to issue a certificate of occupancy. To obtain a certificate of occupancy and avoid litigation by the city for this violation, the prior owners entered into a settlement agreement that required them to deed restrict four of the 16 units to be continuously subject to the rent control ordinance. The deed restriction also required that one of those four units be continuously rented to a low-income household. The deed restriction was recorded against the subject property. Defendant acquired the subject property and is the property’s current owner. Defendant has not complied with the deed restrictions. Plaintiff filed this action for declaratory relief seeking an order declaring that the deed restrictions apply despite the change in ownership to Defendant.

  • Petitioner was arrested and detained by Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Petitioner is a disabled, 58-year-old veteran who relies on a cane to walk. When he was arrested due to a neighbor’s report that he was banging on their common wall, the arresting officers did not let him take his cane. As a result, Petitioner was unable to walk properly during the arrest, his incarceration and his release. When he was finally released, he was forced to wait three hours for his daughter to pick him up because he had no walking aide. Petitioner sought counsel regarding any potential claim he had based on Respondents’ failure to accommodate his disability. Petitioner was only able to locate counsel at the Disability Rights Legal Center, 11 months after accrual of the claim. Petitioner filed a Petition for relief from the Government Code claim presentation requirements.

  • Plaintiff alleges that Defendants improperly classified its business as “Professions/Occupations,” subjecting it to an annual city tax rate of 5.07%. Plaintiff applied to correct the classification and asked to be reclassified as a “Multimedia Business,” which would subject it to a city tax rate of 1.01%. Defendant’s Office of Finance agreed that Plaintiff was incorrectly classified but refused to issue a refund for overpayments.

  • Action challenging the parking ordinance of the City of West Hollywood which restricts the time and place to park food trucks as being discriminatory against the owners of the food trucks.

  • Petitioner owns a commercial building in the City of Santa Monica. Respondent Santa Monica Landmarks Commission made an application to itself to designate Petitioner’s building and property as a landmark. The Landmarks Commission granted the application and deemed by a unanimous vote that Petitioners’ property is deemed a landmark. Petitioner filed an appeal with Respondent City of Santa Monica. Respondent granted Petitioners’ appeal, reversed the Landmarks Commission’s approval of its own application and remanded the matter to the Landmarks Commission. Petitioners contend the City of Santa Monica was only statutorily authorized to either approve or disapprove the Landmark Commission’s prior determination and it had no authority to remand the matter. After the remand from the City, the Landmarks Commission reconvened and rejected the application. There were only 4 out of 7 of the Commissioners voting on the matter due to the recusal of 3 commissioners. Because the application could only be approved by a majority of the 7-member committee, the application could only be approved if all 4 of the remaining commissioners voted in favor of it but only 3 voted in favor of approval. As a result, the Landmarks Commission rejected the application. The Santa Monica Conservancy appealed the denial of the application, standing in place of the Landmarks Commission. The Conservancy’s appeal was heard, and the Respondent City reversed the denial, voting in favor of approving the application to deem Petitioners’ property a landmark.

  • Petitioner seeks an order appointing a receiver to oversee an abandoned property located in West Hollywood. The owner of the property is deceased. The property remains in her name and no probate case has been filed. The only living relative is the decedent’s daughter. Petitioner and the daughter have been in contact about remediating the property, but she refused to do so. As a result, Petitioner asks that the Court appoint a receiver pursuant to Health and Safety Code §17980.7(c).

  • Petitioner owns an apartment building located in the City of Santa Monica. Petitioner filed a Removal Permit Application to remove the property from the purview of the Santa Monica Rent Control Ordinance. Plaintiff’s Removal Application was overseen and shepherded through the process by an attorney with the Santa Monica Rent Control Board. Plaintiff’s Removal Application was granted, and the Board indicated its decision was final. Based on the decision, Petitioner renovated the property and obtained financing. He represented to lenders that the property was not subject to rent control. After 20 years of being led to believe that a Removal Permit Application permanently removed the property from the purview of rent control, the Santa Monica Rent Control indicated that the property was in fact subject to the rent control. The Board indicated it was subject to rent control because the property had been returned to the rental market. Based on this finding, two tenants in the building filed complaints with the Rent Control Board for excess rent payments. Thereafter, the Board found in favor of the tenants and Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Review of the Board’s decision. 

Government Entities

​​​​Representative Cases