Local governments are authorized to enact an administrative process to enforce violations of any local ordinance through the imposition and collection of administrative fines or penalties. (Gov. Code, § 53069.4(a)(1).) This authorization was intended “to provide a faster and more cost-effective enforcement mechanism than criminal prosecution for the violation of a local ordinance.” (94 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 39, 43 (2011).)
Despite its broad applicability, the requirements for implementing a code enforcement process are relatively basic: “The local agency shall set forth by ordinance the administrative procedures that shall govern the imposition, enforcement, collection, and administrative review by the local agency of those administrative fines or penalties.” (Gov. Code, § 53069.4(a)(1).)
Any such administrative procedures must provide for “a reasonable period of time, as specified in the ordinance, for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or otherwise remedy the violation prior to the imposition of administrative fines or penalties, when the violation pertains to building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural or zoning issues, that do not create an immediate danger to health or safety.” (Gov. Code, § 53069.4(a)(2)(A).)
However, “the ordinance adopted by the local agency pursuant to this subdivision may provide for the immediate imposition of administrative fines or penalties for the violation of building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural, health and safety, or zoning requirements if the violation exists as a result of, or to facilitate, the illegal cultivation of cannabis. This subparagraph shall not be construed to apply to cannabis cultivation that is lawfully undertaken pursuant to Section 11362.1 of the Health and Safety Code.” (Gov. Code, § 53069.4(a)(2)(B).) Such an ordinance shall provide for “a reasonable period of time for the correction or remedy of the violation prior to the imposition of administrative fines or penalties... if all of the following are true:
(Gov. Code, § 53069.4(a)(2)(C).)
Section 53069.4 provides for judicial review of a local agency's final administrative order in a code enforcement action. (Gov. Code § 53069.4(b)(1).) Great specificity in the administrative decision is not required and an administrative decision may be deemed satisfactory if the findings form an analytic bridge between the evidence and the agency's decision. (Fair Employment Practice Com. V. State Personnel Bd. (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 322.)
After obtaining an unfavorable administrative decision in a code enforcement proceeding, a challenge to a final administrative order may be brought by either writ of mandate or a Section 53069.4 request for trial de novo. (Martin v. Riverside Co. Dept. of Code Enforcement (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1406.) “[W]ithin 20 days after service of the final administrative order or decision of the local agency is made pursuant to an ordinance enacted in accordance with this section regarding the imposition, enforcement, or collection of the administrative fines or penalties, a person contesting that final administrative order or decision may seek review by filing an appeal to be heard by the superior court, where the same shall be heard de novo, except that the contents of the local agency’s file in the case shall be received in evidence.” (Id.)
The de novo review process authorized by the statute is, in essence, an original proceeding in the superior court reviewing the propriety of a local agency’s final administrative decision after hearing to impose fines or penalties; it is “tantamount to a superior court judgment in mandamus,” which is generally appealable. (Cruz v. Patel (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 234, 242; JKH Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1046, 1056–1057 & fns. 9–10.)
These proceedings are only applicable to limited civil cases. (Gov. Code § 53069.4(b)(1).) The statutory scheme governing the designation of civil actions makes clear that “a civil case is classified as unlimited by default; extra requirements must be satisfied to render a case limited.” (Stratton v. Beck (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 483, 493.) “[N]otwithstanding any statute that classifies an action or special proceeding as a limited civil case, an action or special proceeding shall not be treated as a limited civil case unless all of [three] conditions are satisfied.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 85.) The first of these three conditions requires that “[t]he amount in controversy does not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 85(a).) In addition, the relief sought must be of “a type that may be granted in a limited civil case” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 85(b)) and must be “exclusively of a type described in one or more statutes that classify an action or special proceeding as a limited civil case.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 85(c).)
In finding that a residential hotel conversion and demolition ordinance (HCO) is not subject to the Nollan/Dolan test, because the HCO does not provide City staff or administrative bodies with any discretion as to the imposition or size of a housing replacement fee, the City did not single out plaintiffs for payment of a housing replacement fee and the HCO is generally applicable legislation in that it applies, without discretion or discrimination, to every residential hotel in the city, an appellate court stated
El Dorado County, CA
Article III, section 370 specifically provides “Every contract must be approved by the City Attorney as to form, except for contracts or classes of contracts involving consideration reasonably valued at less than an amount set by ordinance.” (L.A. Charter, § 370.)
Los Angeles County, CA
In finding that the ordinance did not require environmental review under section 15183, Wal-Mart Stores held: “None of the physical changes advocated by Wal-Mart as reasonably foreseeable are peculiar to the Ordinance in the sense that those changes are “characteristic of only” the Ordinance or belong exclusively or especially to the Ordinance. Rather, the Ordinance is at least twice removed from those physical changes.
Los Angeles County, CA
In finding that the ordinance did not require environmental review under section 15183, Wal-Mart Stores held: “None of the physical changes advocated by Wal-Mart as reasonably foreseeable are peculiar to the Ordinance in the sense that those changes are “characteristic of only” the Ordinance or belong exclusively or especially to the Ordinance. Rather, the Ordinance is at least twice removed from those physical changes.
Los Angeles County, CA
The administrative appeals have since been consolidated and assigned for hearing by Administrative Law Judge Eric Sawyer from the Office of Administrative Hearings. (Defendants’ RJN, Exs. 16, 17, 18, 20.) Mr. Sawyer has no affiliation with County. (Somait Dec., ¶18, Ex. Q.) The fact that the administrative appeals have been consolidated and assigned to an independent administrative law judge and will not be heard by Ms.
Santa Barbara County, CA
The third argument appears to be that Plaintiff's prior allegations admitted that "no established administrative procedure for challenging or appealing" the City's denial of the marijuana license application existed. (ROA 207, p. 11:7-8, citing ROA 1, ¶ 2.) The operative word in that argument is that no "established" administrative procedure existed, which, as set forth above, misses the mark.
Administrative
Writ
San Diego County, CA
Applying principles of conflict and obstacle preemption, the appellate court concluded that the “city may not justify its ordinance solely under federal law [citation], nor in doing so invoke federal preemption of state law that may invalidate the city’s ordinance,” and thus the trial court erred as a matter of law in concluding otherwise. (Id. at p. 763.)
Santa Barbara County, CA
City of Rolling Hills Estates, (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 370, 376 (concluding that a view protection ordinance is “closely related” to a zoning ordinance and therefore allowed a substantial amount of vagueness). Courts have upheld land use ordinances similar to section 30251 against vagueness challenges. See Ross v.
Los Angeles County, CA
In the event of any administrative or judicial action by any agency or third party that adjudicates any controversy covered herein. Employee or Employer shall not be permitted to receive a double recovery.
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
This Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the administrative record, but does not take judicial notice of the truth of the “facts” that might be deduced from document. (Cal. Evid. Code §452(d); Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 886-887, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 877.) Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 (a) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a), no further written order is necessary.
San Joaquin County, CA
This Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the administrative record, but does not take judicial notice of the truth of the “facts” that might be deduced from document. (Cal. Evid. Code §452(d); Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 886-887, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 877.) Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 (a) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a), no further written order is necessary.
San Joaquin County, CA
The “matters listed” in sections 65901 and 65903 include “conditional uses or other permits when the zoning ordinance provides therefor” and “variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance.” (§ 65901, subd. (a); see also Travis v. County of Santa Cruz (2004) 33 Cal.4th 757, 766, fn. 2, [Sections 65901 and 65903 “provide for hearing and decision on, and administrative appeals concerning, applications for variances, conditional use permits, and other permits.”)
Gary Nadler via Zoom
Sonoma County, CA
There are exceptions to the exhaustion requirement, including “when pursuit of an administrative remedy would result in irreparable harm, when the administrative agency cannot grant an adequate remedy, and when the aggrieved party can positively state what the administrative agency's decision in his particular case would be.” (Ibid.) Exhaustion of administrative remedies is also required before a petitioner may pursue a traditional writ of mandate pursuant to Section 1085.
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 14.2 Was any PERSON cited or charged with a violation of any statute, ordinance, or regulation as a result of this INCIDENT? If so, for each PERSON state: a) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON; b) The statute, ordinance, or regulation allegedly violated; c) Whether the PERSON entered a plea in response to the citation or charge and, if so, the plea entered; and d) The name and ADDRESS of the court or administrative agency, names of the parties, and case number.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
On December 11, 2018, the City passed Ordinance 185931(the “Ordinance”), effective July 1, 2019. The Ordinance prohibits all short-term rentals (rentals for 30 consecutive days or less) of residential units in the City, except for limited home sharing. The City issued a citation alleging violation of the Ordinance on March 11, 2020. Since the properties are historic buildings, their historical legal use and occupancy are preserved pursuant to the California Historical Building Code (“CHBC”).
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
No. 14.2: Was any PERSON cited or charged with a violation of any statute, ordinance, or regulation as a result of this INCIDENT? If so, for each PERSON state: the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON; (b) the statute, ordinance, or regulation allegedly violated; (c)whether the PERSON entered a plea in response to the citation or charge and., if so, the plea entered; and (d) the name and ADDRESS of the court or administrative agency, names of the) parties, and case number.
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
The City asserts that no quasi-adjudicatory decision has been made that would require application of administrative mandamus and it notes that York Point cites no authority supporting its claim that the court should apply administrative mandamus. Opp. at 13. The court agrees with the City.
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
(Settlement Agreement ¶VI) · "Released Claims" means any and all claims, actions, causes of action, rights, suits, defenses, debts, sums of money, payments, obligations, promises, damages, penalties, attorney's fees, costs, liens, judgments, and demands of any kind whatsoever that each member of the Settlement Class may have or may have had in the past, whether in arbitration, administrative, or judicial proceedings, whether as individual claims or as claims asserted on a class basis, whether past or present
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
“Administrative charge of discrimination” is a term of art commonly used to refer to the complaint filed with these administrative agencies. The term does not limit such complaints to discrimination. (See, e.g., Muhammad v. Sams Club (E.D. Cal., Dec. 15, 2014, No. 2:14-CV-0213-TLN-KJN) 2014 WL 7150254, at *1 (noting that plaintiff “filed an administrative charge of discrimination based on … retaliation”).) Plaintiff has failed to show that this provision limited her right to bring administrative actions.
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
The parties are directed to arrange for pickup of the administrative record not later than October 30, 2020. _______________ *Immediately behind the petition, still within ROA 1, is a memorandum of points and authorities well in excess of the page limits contemplated by CRC 3.1113(d). **Typically, at least in the San Diego Superior Court (SDSC), the administrative record is lodged, not filed.
Administrative
Writ
San Diego County, CA
No ordinance that is either proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the legislative body of the city without submission to the voters, or adopted by the voters, shall be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original ordinance. (Elec. Code, § 9217.)
San Diego County, CA
Id., ¶49. 712 Ardmore has violated the zoning ordinance in many respects.
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
An “enactment” is statutorily defined as “a constitutional provision, statute, charter provision, ordinance or regulation.” (Gov. Code, § 810.6.) The cause of action must specifically allege the particular enactment that creates the mandatory duty. (See, e.g., Washington v. County of Contra Costa (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 890.)
Santa Barbara County, CA
Plaintiff filed the Complaint on August 29, 2019, alleging seven causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; (2) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (3) Negligent Maintenance of Premises; (4) Maintenance of Nuisance; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”); (6) Constructive Eviction; and (7) Relocation Assistance per LA Municipal Ordinance.
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
Petitioner’s other reply arguments either ignore the plain language of the relevant statutes/ordinance and makes policy arguments that are not persuasive and not grounded in any legislative history or other evidence. (See Reply 4:16-5:7.) The court interprets the statutes and ordinance as written. Petitioner’s policy arguments should be directed at the Legislature or City Council.
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
