Preview
1 David M. Shaby II, Esq. (State Bar No. 97871)
R. Christopher Harshman, Esq. (State Bar No. 248214)
2 DAVID M. SHABY II & ASSOCIATES, APC
11949 Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 104
3 Culver City, CA 90230
Telephone: (310) 827-7171
4 dshaby@shabyandassociates.com
charshman@shabyandassociates.com
5
Stan M. Barankiewicz II, Esq. (State Bar No. 204513)
6 ORBACH HUFF & HENDERSON LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 575
7 Los Angeles, California 90067-6007
Telephone: (310) 788-9200
8 Facsimile: (310) 788-9210
sbarankiewicz@ohhlegal.com
9
Attorneys for Petitioner
10 SLING FLYING CLUB, LLC DBA SLING PILOT ACADEMY
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP
12 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
13
14 SLING FLYING CLUB, LLC, DBA SLING CASE NO.:
PILOT ACADEMY, a California limited
15 liability company, UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
16 Petitioners, VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF:
17 v. (1) ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
(CCP § 1094.5)
18 (2) TRADITIONAL MANDATE (CCP §
CITY OF TORRANCE, a California municipal 1085)
19 corporation, SHEILA POISSON, an individual, (3) PROHIBITION (CCP §§ 1102, 1103),
in her official capacity as the City of Torrance OR
20 Finance Director, and ROES 1 through 100, (4) OTHER EXTRAORDINARY
RELIEF
21 Respondents,
22 [Petitioners’ Requests to Prepare the
Administrative Record filed concurrently
23 herewith.]
24 [Stay Requested, CCP § 1104.]
25
26
Petitioner SLING FLYING CLUB, LLC DBA SLING PILOT ACADEMY (“Sling”) hereby
27
brings the following Verified Petition for Writs of Administrative Mandamus, Traditional Mandate,
28
1
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR
PROHIBITION
1 or Prohibition against Respondents CITY OF TORRANCE (“City”), SHEILA POISSON (“Poisson”)
2 (City and Poisson are at times collectively referred to herein as the “City”), ROES 1 through 100, and
3 allege as follows:
4 PARTIES
5 1. Sling Flying Club, LLC, a California limited liability company, is now, and at all
6 relevant times mentioned herein, has been for registered and approved to conduct business in the State
7 of California, County of Los Angeles with its principal place of business located at 3401 Airport Dr.,
8 Suite E, Torrance, California 90505. Sling Flying Club, LLC was formed in 2011 with its Articles of
9 Organization filed with the State of California Secretary of State on May 30, 2011. On December 6,
10 2018, Sling filed its Proof of Public as a fictitious business name of Sling Flying Club, LLC.
11 2. City is now, and at all relevant times mentioned herein, a California municipal
ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP
12 corporation located in the County Los Angeles and the owner of Torrance Municipal Airport.
13 3. Poisson is now, and at all times mentioned herein has been, an individual acting in the
14 course and scope of her employment as the City’s Finance Director.
15 4. Respondents 1 through 100 inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
16 otherwise, are fictitious names of Respondents whose true names and capacities are, at this time,
17 unknown to Petitioners. Petitioners allege that at all times herein mentioned, each of the Respondents
18 sued herein as ROE was acting for himself/herself or itself as an agent, servant, and employee of
19 his/her or its co-respondents, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was acting within the scope
20 of authority as that agent, servant and employee and with the knowledge, permission and/or consent
21 of his/her or its co-respondents, and each of those factiously named respondents, whether acting for
22 himself/herself or itself or as an agent, corporation, association, or otherwise, is in some way liable or
23 responsible to Petitioners. At the time as Respondents’ true names become known to them, Petitioners
24 will seek leave to amend its Petition to insert those Respondents’ true names. Reference herein to
25 Respondents, without any other limitation, shall include both the specifically named and fictitiously
26 named Respondents.
27 VENUE AND JURISDICTION
28 5. Venue is proper in this Court per Code of Civil Procedure section 395(a) as the acts
2
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR
PROHIBITION
1 and omissions complained of herein occurred, and the property affected by those acts is located, in
2 Los Angeles County.
3 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to Code of Civil
4 Procedure sections 1085, 1094.5, 1102, and 1103. Sling is an aggrieved person, as a person who itself
5 or through a representative, appeared at the public hearings of the City and objected to the City’s
6 refusal to allow Sling to renew its flight school business license.
7 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each party in this action because each of them
8 is either organized under the laws of the State of California, incorporated in, and/or qualified to
9 conduct business, or conducting business, in the State of California and the County of Los Angeles.
10 8. The real property which is the subject of this Petition is located at and commonly
11 known as Zamperini Field or Torrance Municipal Airport with the ICAO identifier of KTOA.
ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP
12 9. This action has been commenced within the time limits imposed for this action under
13 Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1094.5. Further, Petitioners have exhausted all available
14 legal remedies prior to filing this Petition.
15 10. In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6(c), Petitioners have
16 concurrently filed a request for Respondents to prepare the administrative record.
17 TORRANCE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
18 11. On March 5, 1948, the United States executed a Quitclaim Deed to the City for a portion
19 of the Torrance Municipal Airport, which was commonly referred to as the Lomita Flight Strip. As
20 part of this Quitclaim Deed, the City was required to not “limit its usefulness as an airport.”
21 SLING’S FLIGHT SCHOOL BUSINESS LICENSE
22 12. On July 3, 2013, Sling obtained its flight school business license from City. The
23 business license permits the business to operate in the City from January 1 to December 31 of each
24 year. Sling has operated as a flight school at Torrance Municipal Airport ever since and has invested
25 and expended over $23 million in the business at Torrance Municipal Airport and continues to do so.
26 In December of each year the City normally sends Sling a business license renewal, which only
27 requires Sling to pay the commensurate fee to continue with its license. The renewal process of City
28 business licenses is ministerial with no discretion to deny a renewal if the applicable fee is paid. Sling
3
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR
PROHIBITION
1 has renewed its flight school business every year since 2013 and sought to do so again for 2024 until
2 prohibited from doing so now, despite renewal notices being sent to other flight schools.
3 CITY’S ATTACK ON FLYING AIRCRAFT AND FLIGHT SCHOOLS
4 13. On October 25, 1977, under Subject 10, Airport Noise Ordinance, City Council
5 separately created, approved, and adopted Resolution No. 77-215, A Resolution of the City Council
6 of the City of Torrance Reaffirming a Previously Adopted Policy to Institute a Program of Aircraft
7 Noise Abatement and Directing the City Manager and Other City Officials to Take Certain Steps to
8 Implement Such Program. In the fifth Whereas clause of Resolution No. 77-215, it states, “[T]he
9 volume of flights emanating from Torrance Municipal Airport will be controlled at a level compatible
10 with community tranquility….” Section 1 of Resolution No. 77-215 states, “That it hereby reaffirms
11 the noise abatement policies for the Torrance Municipal Airport which it has previously adopted
ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP
12 (supplementary to those polices which are the subject of the noise abatement ordinance), to wit:”
13 Section 1, Item 16 of Resolution No. 77-215 states, “That the number of flight schools on the Airport
14 be limited to six (the number of schools now operating).” (“6-Flight School Limitation”.) Section 1,
15 Item 21 of Resolution No. 77-215 states, “That the City Manager seek alternative training fields for
16 training flights, particularly touch and go and stop and go operations.”
17 14. In November 1981, the City published the Torrance Municipal Airport Aircraft Noise
18 Control and Land Use Compatibility Study (“ANCLUC Report”). On page 1-1 of the ANCLUC
19 Report, it states, “The long history of over 1000 flight operations per day at Torrance Municipal
20 Airport (TOA) has produced conflicts with surrounding residential land uses that were sufficient to
21 cause the City to initiate a comprehensive aircraft noise abatement program.” On page 4-29 of the
22 ANCLUC Report, it provides the results of poll conducted where persons were asked, “Do you think
23 any further changes should be made in the flight operations of the Torrance Airport?” Answer 8 was
24 to ban flight schools.
25 15. On December 14, 2021, the City Council considered Agenda Item 9H, Community
26 Development – Award consulting services agreement for Airport Noise Monitoring System and
27 Authorize an additional Environmental Quality Officer. Expenditure: $627,078 (Non-General Fund).
28 Numerous comments were made complaining about flying aircraft from flight schools.
4
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR
PROHIBITION
1 16. In a meeting with the City’s M. Ramirez on January 18, 2023, she cajoled Sling to sign
2 a voluntary agreement to curb flight operations with the promise to allow Sling to “continue doing
3 business in the City of Torrance.”
4 17. On March 29, 2022, City Council considered Agenda Item 9B, Community
5 Development – Accept and File Torrance Municipal Airport (Zamperini Field) Noise Abatement
6 Update. Expenditure: None. During consideration of this Agenda Item, the City Council listened to
7 discussions on the Torrance Municipal Code Section 51.2.3(e)’s prohibition on early left turns and the
8 number of flights due to the flight schools at Torrance Municipal Airport. Numerous comments were
9 made complaining about aircraft flying over homes and that something has to be done.
10 18. On November 8, 2022, City Council considered Agenda Item 9I, City Attorney,
11 Community Development, and General Services – Accept and File Torrance Municipal Airport
ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP
12 (Zamperini Field) Noise Abatement and Airport Operations Update and Review and Provide Direction
13 on Implementation of Landing Fees. Expenditure: None. During consideration of Item 9I, numerous
14 comments were made complaining about flying aircraft. Once commenter said, “The Walteria
15 neighborhood has been bombarded by south training pattern flights from flight schools….” “Torrance
16 should not allow any private flight school to use a public resource for its own benefit while
17 disrespecting the residents who live near that resource and help pay for it through their taxes. The city
18 should either permanently reduce the number of flight schools that can operate out of Torrance
19 Airport…” Another commentor said, “The city should address this issue by incorporating the flowing
20 enforcement strategies: [¶]…[¶] Restrict the number of training flights, ensuring that they tum at the
21 ocean when making their loops. Currently there are 7 flight training schools at the Torrance Airport,
22 which is too many for a municipal airport surrounded by so many residential tracts. There are only
23 two flight training schools each at the Hawthorne and Santa Monica Airports.”
24 19. Now driven by the resident complaints and City Council’s hostility to flying aircraft,
25 the City Council embarked on a campaign to severely limit aircraft flying overhead. This hostility has
26 come to a feverous pitch when City Council decided to take a number of actions to curb flying aircraft
27 under City Council Agenda Item 9A, Transportation Committee - Accept and File April 12, 2023
28 Meeting Minutes and Provide Direction Regarding Airport Landing Fees, Air Noise Mitigation
5
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR
PROHIBITION
1 Efforts, and Phase Out of Leaded Gas. Expenditure: None on July 25, 2023. The Staff Report
2 identified Resolution No. 77-215 to limit the number of flight schools: “The City Council may decide
3 to pursue other options with regards to the flight schools that are in excess of the number of flight
4 schools allowed by Resolution No. 77-215. During the course of considering Agenda Item 9A,
5 numerous comments were made about noise from flying aircraft. “It is not uncommon to receive
6 complaints of low-flying noisy aircraft west of Anza Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway.” (Meeting
7 time, 2:33:15.) “You know less people are going to want to fly and quite honestly I think that’s really
8 the end goal is to reduce the amount of traffic over our skies.” (Id. 2:57:50.) “A lot of the email
9 complaints that we get is are people that are doing those constant circles over people’s houses.” (Id.
10 3:02:13.) “The loud noise and frequency of planes is intolerable, I can no longer enjoy my home or
11 yard without constant revving of engines flying low overhead at time them plane going over every
ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP
12 minute.” (Id. 3:44:15.) “It would eliminate a ton of noise over all of our HOA area when the pilots
13 miss that they kind of cut right over our neighborhood and that’s what we’re getting this really low
14 you know flying noise.” (Id. 4:12:41.) “All of these uh flights that have come out from the flight
15 schools. The explosion of flight schools. There is numerous planes that are constantly flying very
16 low over homes circling. We can’t converse in our homes. It’s really an intolerable situation. There’s
17 lots of solutions I support.” (Id. 4:18:40.) “Nonstop fly [ing] needs to stop.” (Id. 4:19:37.) “We have
18 tried playing nice asking flight schools to be mindful of the city and its residents, and it is clear that
19 isn’t working. They constantly fly over residential areas despite clear signage telling them to do
20 otherwise.” (Id. 4:22:15.) “Hopefully, we will be able to hear a little bit without a whole of airplane
21 noise flying overhead.” (Id. 8:05:48.) The reason for the 6-Flight-School Limit and the action being
22 considered was to regulate and limit flying aircraft. “The Transportation Committee (Committee) met
23 on December 14, 2022 and April 12, 2023 to receive input and provide direction regarding concerns
24 about the Torrance Municipal Airport - Zamperini Field (Airport). Items discussed were options for
25 reduction of aircraft operations and noise[.]” And, “Discussion from both Torrance residents and the
26 aviation community was heard, each with proposals and feedback as how to best mitigate the noise
27 and frequency of flights in the areas surrounding the Airport.” (Emph. added.)
28 20. On September 12, 2023, the City Council considered Agenda Item 9F, City Manager
6
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR
PROHIBITION
1 and City Attorney – Reconsideration of a Council Action Not to Ban Touch and Goes at Torrance
2 Municipal Airport – Zamperini Field. Expenditure: None. Numerous comments were made
3 complaining about flying aircraft from flight schools.
4 21. On October 17, 2023, the City Council considered Agenda Item 9G, City Manager and
5 City Attorney – City Council Consideration of a Ban on Touch and Goes at Torrance Municipal
6 Airport – Zamperini Field. Expenditure: None. Numerous comments were made complaining about
7 flying aircraft from flight schools.
8 22. On information and belief, Sling thereon alleges that the City has never enforced the 6-
9 Flight School Limitation until October 2023.
10 23. In just a few months later, Ms. Poisson handed down her decision to refuse to allow
11 Sling to renew its flight school business license since six business licenses predate Sling’s. This is
ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP
12 exceptionally egregious considering that Sling has been operating under its business license for the
13 past 10 years and has invested over $23 million in its operations at Torrance Airport.
14 THE 6-FLIGHT SCHOOL LIMITATION IS PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW
15 24. On October 24, 2023, the Poisson sent a letter to Sling notifying Sling that due to
16 Resolution No. 77-215’s limitation of flight schools at the Torrance Airport to six and that Sling’s
17 business license is beyond the six, the City decided to not renew Sling’s business license for 2024.
18 25. City regulation of flying aircraft is preempted by federal law. As an overarching
19 matter, the regulation of aircraft flight rests solely with the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”).
20 Per Title 49 United States Code section 40103(a)(1), “The US Government has exclusive sovereignty
21 of airspace of the United States.” This means that any attempt by the City to regulate the airspace
22 above Torrance Airport has been preempted. This includes the regulation of flights.
23 26. Both in 2020 and 2022, the FAA repeatedly told the City it cannot regulate flight; only
24 the FAA can. In a letter dated February 18, 2020 to the Torrance Airport Association, the FAA stated,
25 “Congress has long vested the FAA with authority to regulate the areas of airspace use, management
26 and efficiency; air traffic control; safety; navigational facilities; and aircraft noise at its source.” In
27 response to a question about Torrance Municipal Code section 5.2.3(e), which prohibits aircraft from
28 turning left until it has reached the ocean or attained an altitude of fifteen hundred (1,500) feet, the
7
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR
PROHIBITION
1 FAA readily struck it down explaining:
2 “Because the Torrance code provision applies to aircraft in flight, it is not consistent
with the Federal statutory and regulatory framework described above. Enforcement of
3 the provision would be at odds with various court opinions. As noted, state and local
governments lack the authority to regulate airspace use, management and efficiency;
4
air traffic control; and aircraft noise at its source. Federal courts have found that a
5 navigable airspace free from inconsistent state and local restrictions is essential to the
maintenance of a safe and sound air transportation system.”
6
7 27. In response, by letter dated August 16, 2021 and then through its attorneys on
8 September 20, 2022, the City asked the FAA if the early left turn prohibition was grandfathered. The
9 FAA said no.
10 28. On information and belief, Sling thereon alleges that the 6-Flight School Limitation in
11 Resolution No. 77-215 was adopted for the improper purpose of regulating flying aircraft by reducing
ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP
12 the number of flight schools at Torrance Municipal Airport. Regulating flying aircraft is clearly
13 preempted by federal law.
14 29. On information and belief, Sling thereon alleges that Rolling Hills Aviation is not a
15 flight school at Torrance Municipal Airport, and thus, Sling is actually number 6 and within the 6-
16 Flight School Limitation.
17 RESOLUTION NO. 77-215 AND THE TORRANCE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN ARE
18 UNENFORCEABLE AGAINST SLING WITHOUT AN ADOPTING ORDINANCE
19 30. Section 725 of the City’s Charter requires any regulation over the use of property to be
20 done by ordinance.
21 31. City has not adopted an ordinance to implement either Resolution No. 77-215 or the
22 Torrance Airport Master Plan. As a result, the City is unable to enforce either Resolution No. 77-215
23 or the Torrance Airport Master Plan against Sling as a basis to not allow Sling to renew its flight school
24 business license.
25 SLING’S APPEAL TO CITY’S LICENSE REVIEW BOARD
26 32. On November 6, 2023, Sling filed its Request for a Hearing and Opening Brief Seeking
27 to Vacate Finance Director’s Non-Renewal of Business License Decision. No hearing was conducted.
28 33. By letter dated November 15, 2023, the City Attorney notified Sling that its Request
8
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR
PROHIBITION
1 for Hearing before the License Review Board (“LRB”) was not ripe and therefore not entitled to a
2 hearing before the LRB.
3 SLING’S APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
4 34. On November 17, 2023, Sling filed its Appeal to the City Council with the City.
5 35. On December 6, 2023, Poisson emailed Sling’s counsel notice that Sling’s Appeal to
6 City Council would be heard at the City Council meeting of December 12, 2023.
7 36. On December 12, 2023, Sling filed its Reply Brief and Sling appeared at the hearing
8 and advocated for its appeal; thereafter, the City Council voted to deny Sling’s appeal.
9 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
10 (Writ of Administrative Mandamus pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 to
11 Command City to Vacate Its Denial of Sling’s Appeal to City Council)
ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP
12 [As Against City and ROES 1 through 100]
13 37. Sling realleges and incorporates by reference each paragraph above, as though fully set
14 forth herein.
15 38. Sling has a beneficial interest in the outcome of the proceedings because it would be
16 allowed to renew its flight school business license and allow Sling to continue its business
17 uninterrupted.
18 39. Sling has a clear, present, and legal right to the City’s ministerial duty to allow Sling
19 to renew its flight school business license.
20 40. The City and Poisson have refused, and continue to refuse, to allow Sling to renew its
21 flight school business license. The City has intimated that the City will take punitive actions against
22 Sling if it continues its flight school operations.
23 41. Sling has exhausted all available administrative remedies required to be pursued by it
24 as set forth in the Torrance Municipal to appeal to the LRB and City Council, as set forth above.
25 42. Sling lacks any plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy to challenge City and
26 Poisson’s decisions to refuse to allow Sling to renew its flight school business license because no
27 provision of Torrance Municipal Code, statute or common law provides a legal cause of action for
28 such refusals.
9
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR
PROHIBITION
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (Writ of Traditional Mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 to Compel
3 City to Allow Sling to Renew Its Flight School Business License
4 [As Against City and ROES 1 through 100]
5 43. Sling realleges and incorporates by reference each paragraph above, as though fully set
6 forth herein.
7 44. Sling has a beneficial interest in the outcome of the proceedings because it would be
8 allowed to renew its flight school business license and allow Sling to continue its business
9 uninterrupted.
10 45. Sling has a clear, present, and legal right to the City’s ministerial duty to allow Sling
11 to renew its flight school business license.
ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP
12 46. The City and Poisson have refused, and continue to refuse, to allow Sling to renew its
13 flight school business license.
14 47. Sling has exhausted all available administrative remedies required to be pursued by it
15 as set forth in the Torrance Municipal to appeal to the LRB and City Council, as set forth above.
16 48. Sling lacks any plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy to challenge City and
17 Poisson’s decisions to refuse to allow Sling to renew its flight school business license because no
18 provision of Torrance Municipal Code, statute or common law provides a legal cause of action for
19 such refusals.
20 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
21 (Writ of Prohibition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1102 to Compel City and
22 Poisson to Allow Sling to Renew Its Flight School Business)
23 [As Against City, Poisson, and ROES 1 through 100]
24 49. Sling realleges and incorporates by reference each paragraph above, as though fully set
25 forth herein.
26 50. Since October 14, 2024, City and Poisson refuse to allow Sling to renew its flight
27 school business license. These refusals are threatened judicial acts to not allow Sling to renew, where
28 the failure to allow Sling to renew its business license is a failure in their ministerial duties to send the
10
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR
PROHIBITION
1 renewal notice to Sling, let Sling pay the renewal fee, and issue Sling its renewed flight school business
2 license.
3 51. Both the City and Poisson’s actions are exercising judicial functions in refusing to
4 allow Sling to renew its flight school business license.
5 52. The City and Poisson’s intent, unless prohibited, is to act or continue to act without or
6 in excess of their jurisdiction by enforcing the invalid and unenforceable Resolution No. 77-215 and
7 the Torrance Airport Master Plan.
8 53. Sling has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, other than
9 the relief it seeks in this Petition, in that this matter is not otherwise reviewable in a manner that
10 provides Petitioners with an adequate remedy at law.
11 54. Sling has exhausted all available and non-futile administrative remedies it is required
ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP
12 to pursue under law.
13 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
14 WHEREFORE, Sling respectfully prays for judgment against Respondents, and each of them, as
15 follows:
16 1. For a writ of administrative mandamus pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
17 1094.5 commanding City to vacate its denial of Sling’s appeal to the City Council.
18 2. For a writ of traditional mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085
19 commanding City and Poisson to allow Sling to renew its flight school business license.
20 3. For a writ of prohibition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1102 and 1103
21 to prohibit City and Poisson from refusing to allow Sling to renew its flight school
22 business license
23 4. For Petitioners’ costs of suit.
24 5. For attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021.5 and 1032
25 and/or other applicable law.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
11
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR
PROHIBITION
1 6. For such other and future relief as the Court deems just and proper.
2
3 DATED: December 18, 2023 DAVID M. SHABY II & ASSOCIATES, APC
4
5
By:______________________________
6 David M. Shaby II, Esq.
R. Christopher Harshman, Esq.
7 Attorneys for Petitioner
SLING FLYING CLUB, LLC DBA SLING PILOT
8 ACADEMY
9
10
11 ORBACH HUFF & HENDERSON LLP
ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP
12
13 By:________________________
Stan M. Barankiewicz II, Esq.
14 Attorneys for Petitioner
SLING FLYING CLUB, LLC DBA SLING PILOT
15 ACADEMY
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR
PROHIBITION
1 VERIFICATION
2 I, the undersigned, declare:
3 I am the petitioner in this action. All facts alleged in the above document are true of my own
4 personal knowledge. I have read the above Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate, Traditional
5 Mandate, Or Prohibit and know its contents. All facts alleged in the petition are true of my own
6 personal knowledge.
7 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
8 declaration was executed on December 18, 2023 at Torrance, California.
9
10
11 ____________________________________
ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP
12 Matt Liknaitzky, Co-CEO Sling Pilot Academy
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR
PROHIBITION
Preview
1 David M. Shaby II, Esq. (State Bar No. 97871) R. Christopher Harshman, Esq. (State Bar No. 248214) 2 DAVID M. SHABY II & ASSOCIATES, APC 11949 Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 104 3 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (310) 827-7171 4 dshaby@shabyandassociates.com charshman@shabyandassociates.com 5 Stan M. Barankiewicz II, Esq. (State Bar No. 204513) 6 ORBACH HUFF & HENDERSON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 575 7 Los Angeles, California 90067-6007 Telephone: (310) 788-9200 8 Facsimile: (310) 788-9210 sbarankiewicz@ohhlegal.com 9 Attorneys for Petitioner 10 SLING FLYING CLUB, LLC DBA SLING PILOT ACADEMY 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP 12 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 13 14 SLING FLYING CLUB, LLC, DBA SLING CASE NO.: PILOT ACADEMY, a California limited 15 liability company, UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 16 Petitioners, VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF: 17 v. (1) ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS (CCP § 1094.5) 18 (2) TRADITIONAL MANDATE (CCP § CITY OF TORRANCE, a California municipal 1085) 19 corporation, SHEILA POISSON, an individual, (3) PROHIBITION (CCP §§ 1102, 1103), in her official capacity as the City of Torrance OR 20 Finance Director, and ROES 1 through 100, (4) OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF 21 Respondents, 22 [Petitioners’ Requests to Prepare the Administrative Record filed concurrently 23 herewith.] 24 [Stay Requested, CCP § 1104.] 25 26 Petitioner SLING FLYING CLUB, LLC DBA SLING PILOT ACADEMY (“Sling”) hereby 27 brings the following Verified Petition for Writs of Administrative Mandamus, Traditional Mandate, 28 1 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR PROHIBITION 1 or Prohibition against Respondents CITY OF TORRANCE (“City”), SHEILA POISSON (“Poisson”) 2 (City and Poisson are at times collectively referred to herein as the “City”), ROES 1 through 100, and 3 allege as follows: 4 PARTIES 5 1. Sling Flying Club, LLC, a California limited liability company, is now, and at all 6 relevant times mentioned herein, has been for registered and approved to conduct business in the State 7 of California, County of Los Angeles with its principal place of business located at 3401 Airport Dr., 8 Suite E, Torrance, California 90505. Sling Flying Club, LLC was formed in 2011 with its Articles of 9 Organization filed with the State of California Secretary of State on May 30, 2011. On December 6, 10 2018, Sling filed its Proof of Public as a fictitious business name of Sling Flying Club, LLC. 11 2. City is now, and at all relevant times mentioned herein, a California municipal ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP 12 corporation located in the County Los Angeles and the owner of Torrance Municipal Airport. 13 3. Poisson is now, and at all times mentioned herein has been, an individual acting in the 14 course and scope of her employment as the City’s Finance Director. 15 4. Respondents 1 through 100 inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate, or 16 otherwise, are fictitious names of Respondents whose true names and capacities are, at this time, 17 unknown to Petitioners. Petitioners allege that at all times herein mentioned, each of the Respondents 18 sued herein as ROE was acting for himself/herself or itself as an agent, servant, and employee of 19 his/her or its co-respondents, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was acting within the scope 20 of authority as that agent, servant and employee and with the knowledge, permission and/or consent 21 of his/her or its co-respondents, and each of those factiously named respondents, whether acting for 22 himself/herself or itself or as an agent, corporation, association, or otherwise, is in some way liable or 23 responsible to Petitioners. At the time as Respondents’ true names become known to them, Petitioners 24 will seek leave to amend its Petition to insert those Respondents’ true names. Reference herein to 25 Respondents, without any other limitation, shall include both the specifically named and fictitiously 26 named Respondents. 27 VENUE AND JURISDICTION 28 5. Venue is proper in this Court per Code of Civil Procedure section 395(a) as the acts 2 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR PROHIBITION 1 and omissions complained of herein occurred, and the property affected by those acts is located, in 2 Los Angeles County. 3 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to Code of Civil 4 Procedure sections 1085, 1094.5, 1102, and 1103. Sling is an aggrieved person, as a person who itself 5 or through a representative, appeared at the public hearings of the City and objected to the City’s 6 refusal to allow Sling to renew its flight school business license. 7 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each party in this action because each of them 8 is either organized under the laws of the State of California, incorporated in, and/or qualified to 9 conduct business, or conducting business, in the State of California and the County of Los Angeles. 10 8. The real property which is the subject of this Petition is located at and commonly 11 known as Zamperini Field or Torrance Municipal Airport with the ICAO identifier of KTOA. ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP 12 9. This action has been commenced within the time limits imposed for this action under 13 Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1094.5. Further, Petitioners have exhausted all available 14 legal remedies prior to filing this Petition. 15 10. In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6(c), Petitioners have 16 concurrently filed a request for Respondents to prepare the administrative record. 17 TORRANCE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 18 11. On March 5, 1948, the United States executed a Quitclaim Deed to the City for a portion 19 of the Torrance Municipal Airport, which was commonly referred to as the Lomita Flight Strip. As 20 part of this Quitclaim Deed, the City was required to not “limit its usefulness as an airport.” 21 SLING’S FLIGHT SCHOOL BUSINESS LICENSE 22 12. On July 3, 2013, Sling obtained its flight school business license from City. The 23 business license permits the business to operate in the City from January 1 to December 31 of each 24 year. Sling has operated as a flight school at Torrance Municipal Airport ever since and has invested 25 and expended over $23 million in the business at Torrance Municipal Airport and continues to do so. 26 In December of each year the City normally sends Sling a business license renewal, which only 27 requires Sling to pay the commensurate fee to continue with its license. The renewal process of City 28 business licenses is ministerial with no discretion to deny a renewal if the applicable fee is paid. Sling 3 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR PROHIBITION 1 has renewed its flight school business every year since 2013 and sought to do so again for 2024 until 2 prohibited from doing so now, despite renewal notices being sent to other flight schools. 3 CITY’S ATTACK ON FLYING AIRCRAFT AND FLIGHT SCHOOLS 4 13. On October 25, 1977, under Subject 10, Airport Noise Ordinance, City Council 5 separately created, approved, and adopted Resolution No. 77-215, A Resolution of the City Council 6 of the City of Torrance Reaffirming a Previously Adopted Policy to Institute a Program of Aircraft 7 Noise Abatement and Directing the City Manager and Other City Officials to Take Certain Steps to 8 Implement Such Program. In the fifth Whereas clause of Resolution No. 77-215, it states, “[T]he 9 volume of flights emanating from Torrance Municipal Airport will be controlled at a level compatible 10 with community tranquility….” Section 1 of Resolution No. 77-215 states, “That it hereby reaffirms 11 the noise abatement policies for the Torrance Municipal Airport which it has previously adopted ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP 12 (supplementary to those polices which are the subject of the noise abatement ordinance), to wit:” 13 Section 1, Item 16 of Resolution No. 77-215 states, “That the number of flight schools on the Airport 14 be limited to six (the number of schools now operating).” (“6-Flight School Limitation”.) Section 1, 15 Item 21 of Resolution No. 77-215 states, “That the City Manager seek alternative training fields for 16 training flights, particularly touch and go and stop and go operations.” 17 14. In November 1981, the City published the Torrance Municipal Airport Aircraft Noise 18 Control and Land Use Compatibility Study (“ANCLUC Report”). On page 1-1 of the ANCLUC 19 Report, it states, “The long history of over 1000 flight operations per day at Torrance Municipal 20 Airport (TOA) has produced conflicts with surrounding residential land uses that were sufficient to 21 cause the City to initiate a comprehensive aircraft noise abatement program.” On page 4-29 of the 22 ANCLUC Report, it provides the results of poll conducted where persons were asked, “Do you think 23 any further changes should be made in the flight operations of the Torrance Airport?” Answer 8 was 24 to ban flight schools. 25 15. On December 14, 2021, the City Council considered Agenda Item 9H, Community 26 Development – Award consulting services agreement for Airport Noise Monitoring System and 27 Authorize an additional Environmental Quality Officer. Expenditure: $627,078 (Non-General Fund). 28 Numerous comments were made complaining about flying aircraft from flight schools. 4 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR PROHIBITION 1 16. In a meeting with the City’s M. Ramirez on January 18, 2023, she cajoled Sling to sign 2 a voluntary agreement to curb flight operations with the promise to allow Sling to “continue doing 3 business in the City of Torrance.” 4 17. On March 29, 2022, City Council considered Agenda Item 9B, Community 5 Development – Accept and File Torrance Municipal Airport (Zamperini Field) Noise Abatement 6 Update. Expenditure: None. During consideration of this Agenda Item, the City Council listened to 7 discussions on the Torrance Municipal Code Section 51.2.3(e)’s prohibition on early left turns and the 8 number of flights due to the flight schools at Torrance Municipal Airport. Numerous comments were 9 made complaining about aircraft flying over homes and that something has to be done. 10 18. On November 8, 2022, City Council considered Agenda Item 9I, City Attorney, 11 Community Development, and General Services – Accept and File Torrance Municipal Airport ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP 12 (Zamperini Field) Noise Abatement and Airport Operations Update and Review and Provide Direction 13 on Implementation of Landing Fees. Expenditure: None. During consideration of Item 9I, numerous 14 comments were made complaining about flying aircraft. Once commenter said, “The Walteria 15 neighborhood has been bombarded by south training pattern flights from flight schools….” “Torrance 16 should not allow any private flight school to use a public resource for its own benefit while 17 disrespecting the residents who live near that resource and help pay for it through their taxes. The city 18 should either permanently reduce the number of flight schools that can operate out of Torrance 19 Airport…” Another commentor said, “The city should address this issue by incorporating the flowing 20 enforcement strategies: [¶]…[¶] Restrict the number of training flights, ensuring that they tum at the 21 ocean when making their loops. Currently there are 7 flight training schools at the Torrance Airport, 22 which is too many for a municipal airport surrounded by so many residential tracts. There are only 23 two flight training schools each at the Hawthorne and Santa Monica Airports.” 24 19. Now driven by the resident complaints and City Council’s hostility to flying aircraft, 25 the City Council embarked on a campaign to severely limit aircraft flying overhead. This hostility has 26 come to a feverous pitch when City Council decided to take a number of actions to curb flying aircraft 27 under City Council Agenda Item 9A, Transportation Committee - Accept and File April 12, 2023 28 Meeting Minutes and Provide Direction Regarding Airport Landing Fees, Air Noise Mitigation 5 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR PROHIBITION 1 Efforts, and Phase Out of Leaded Gas. Expenditure: None on July 25, 2023. The Staff Report 2 identified Resolution No. 77-215 to limit the number of flight schools: “The City Council may decide 3 to pursue other options with regards to the flight schools that are in excess of the number of flight 4 schools allowed by Resolution No. 77-215. During the course of considering Agenda Item 9A, 5 numerous comments were made about noise from flying aircraft. “It is not uncommon to receive 6 complaints of low-flying noisy aircraft west of Anza Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway.” (Meeting 7 time, 2:33:15.) “You know less people are going to want to fly and quite honestly I think that’s really 8 the end goal is to reduce the amount of traffic over our skies.” (Id. 2:57:50.) “A lot of the email 9 complaints that we get is are people that are doing those constant circles over people’s houses.” (Id. 10 3:02:13.) “The loud noise and frequency of planes is intolerable, I can no longer enjoy my home or 11 yard without constant revving of engines flying low overhead at time them plane going over every ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP 12 minute.” (Id. 3:44:15.) “It would eliminate a ton of noise over all of our HOA area when the pilots 13 miss that they kind of cut right over our neighborhood and that’s what we’re getting this really low 14 you know flying noise.” (Id. 4:12:41.) “All of these uh flights that have come out from the flight 15 schools. The explosion of flight schools. There is numerous planes that are constantly flying very 16 low over homes circling. We can’t converse in our homes. It’s really an intolerable situation. There’s 17 lots of solutions I support.” (Id. 4:18:40.) “Nonstop fly [ing] needs to stop.” (Id. 4:19:37.) “We have 18 tried playing nice asking flight schools to be mindful of the city and its residents, and it is clear that 19 isn’t working. They constantly fly over residential areas despite clear signage telling them to do 20 otherwise.” (Id. 4:22:15.) “Hopefully, we will be able to hear a little bit without a whole of airplane 21 noise flying overhead.” (Id. 8:05:48.) The reason for the 6-Flight-School Limit and the action being 22 considered was to regulate and limit flying aircraft. “The Transportation Committee (Committee) met 23 on December 14, 2022 and April 12, 2023 to receive input and provide direction regarding concerns 24 about the Torrance Municipal Airport - Zamperini Field (Airport). Items discussed were options for 25 reduction of aircraft operations and noise[.]” And, “Discussion from both Torrance residents and the 26 aviation community was heard, each with proposals and feedback as how to best mitigate the noise 27 and frequency of flights in the areas surrounding the Airport.” (Emph. added.) 28 20. On September 12, 2023, the City Council considered Agenda Item 9F, City Manager 6 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR PROHIBITION 1 and City Attorney – Reconsideration of a Council Action Not to Ban Touch and Goes at Torrance 2 Municipal Airport – Zamperini Field. Expenditure: None. Numerous comments were made 3 complaining about flying aircraft from flight schools. 4 21. On October 17, 2023, the City Council considered Agenda Item 9G, City Manager and 5 City Attorney – City Council Consideration of a Ban on Touch and Goes at Torrance Municipal 6 Airport – Zamperini Field. Expenditure: None. Numerous comments were made complaining about 7 flying aircraft from flight schools. 8 22. On information and belief, Sling thereon alleges that the City has never enforced the 6- 9 Flight School Limitation until October 2023. 10 23. In just a few months later, Ms. Poisson handed down her decision to refuse to allow 11 Sling to renew its flight school business license since six business licenses predate Sling’s. This is ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP 12 exceptionally egregious considering that Sling has been operating under its business license for the 13 past 10 years and has invested over $23 million in its operations at Torrance Airport. 14 THE 6-FLIGHT SCHOOL LIMITATION IS PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW 15 24. On October 24, 2023, the Poisson sent a letter to Sling notifying Sling that due to 16 Resolution No. 77-215’s limitation of flight schools at the Torrance Airport to six and that Sling’s 17 business license is beyond the six, the City decided to not renew Sling’s business license for 2024. 18 25. City regulation of flying aircraft is preempted by federal law. As an overarching 19 matter, the regulation of aircraft flight rests solely with the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). 20 Per Title 49 United States Code section 40103(a)(1), “The US Government has exclusive sovereignty 21 of airspace of the United States.” This means that any attempt by the City to regulate the airspace 22 above Torrance Airport has been preempted. This includes the regulation of flights. 23 26. Both in 2020 and 2022, the FAA repeatedly told the City it cannot regulate flight; only 24 the FAA can. In a letter dated February 18, 2020 to the Torrance Airport Association, the FAA stated, 25 “Congress has long vested the FAA with authority to regulate the areas of airspace use, management 26 and efficiency; air traffic control; safety; navigational facilities; and aircraft noise at its source.” In 27 response to a question about Torrance Municipal Code section 5.2.3(e), which prohibits aircraft from 28 turning left until it has reached the ocean or attained an altitude of fifteen hundred (1,500) feet, the 7 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR PROHIBITION 1 FAA readily struck it down explaining: 2 “Because the Torrance code provision applies to aircraft in flight, it is not consistent with the Federal statutory and regulatory framework described above. Enforcement of 3 the provision would be at odds with various court opinions. As noted, state and local governments lack the authority to regulate airspace use, management and efficiency; 4 air traffic control; and aircraft noise at its source. Federal courts have found that a 5 navigable airspace free from inconsistent state and local restrictions is essential to the maintenance of a safe and sound air transportation system.” 6 7 27. In response, by letter dated August 16, 2021 and then through its attorneys on 8 September 20, 2022, the City asked the FAA if the early left turn prohibition was grandfathered. The 9 FAA said no. 10 28. On information and belief, Sling thereon alleges that the 6-Flight School Limitation in 11 Resolution No. 77-215 was adopted for the improper purpose of regulating flying aircraft by reducing ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP 12 the number of flight schools at Torrance Municipal Airport. Regulating flying aircraft is clearly 13 preempted by federal law. 14 29. On information and belief, Sling thereon alleges that Rolling Hills Aviation is not a 15 flight school at Torrance Municipal Airport, and thus, Sling is actually number 6 and within the 6- 16 Flight School Limitation. 17 RESOLUTION NO. 77-215 AND THE TORRANCE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN ARE 18 UNENFORCEABLE AGAINST SLING WITHOUT AN ADOPTING ORDINANCE 19 30. Section 725 of the City’s Charter requires any regulation over the use of property to be 20 done by ordinance. 21 31. City has not adopted an ordinance to implement either Resolution No. 77-215 or the 22 Torrance Airport Master Plan. As a result, the City is unable to enforce either Resolution No. 77-215 23 or the Torrance Airport Master Plan against Sling as a basis to not allow Sling to renew its flight school 24 business license. 25 SLING’S APPEAL TO CITY’S LICENSE REVIEW BOARD 26 32. On November 6, 2023, Sling filed its Request for a Hearing and Opening Brief Seeking 27 to Vacate Finance Director’s Non-Renewal of Business License Decision. No hearing was conducted. 28 33. By letter dated November 15, 2023, the City Attorney notified Sling that its Request 8 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR PROHIBITION 1 for Hearing before the License Review Board (“LRB”) was not ripe and therefore not entitled to a 2 hearing before the LRB. 3 SLING’S APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL 4 34. On November 17, 2023, Sling filed its Appeal to the City Council with the City. 5 35. On December 6, 2023, Poisson emailed Sling’s counsel notice that Sling’s Appeal to 6 City Council would be heard at the City Council meeting of December 12, 2023. 7 36. On December 12, 2023, Sling filed its Reply Brief and Sling appeared at the hearing 8 and advocated for its appeal; thereafter, the City Council voted to deny Sling’s appeal. 9 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 10 (Writ of Administrative Mandamus pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 to 11 Command City to Vacate Its Denial of Sling’s Appeal to City Council) ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP 12 [As Against City and ROES 1 through 100] 13 37. Sling realleges and incorporates by reference each paragraph above, as though fully set 14 forth herein. 15 38. Sling has a beneficial interest in the outcome of the proceedings because it would be 16 allowed to renew its flight school business license and allow Sling to continue its business 17 uninterrupted. 18 39. Sling has a clear, present, and legal right to the City’s ministerial duty to allow Sling 19 to renew its flight school business license. 20 40. The City and Poisson have refused, and continue to refuse, to allow Sling to renew its 21 flight school business license. The City has intimated that the City will take punitive actions against 22 Sling if it continues its flight school operations. 23 41. Sling has exhausted all available administrative remedies required to be pursued by it 24 as set forth in the Torrance Municipal to appeal to the LRB and City Council, as set forth above. 25 42. Sling lacks any plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy to challenge City and 26 Poisson’s decisions to refuse to allow Sling to renew its flight school business license because no 27 provision of Torrance Municipal Code, statute or common law provides a legal cause of action for 28 such refusals. 9 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR PROHIBITION 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 2 (Writ of Traditional Mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 to Compel 3 City to Allow Sling to Renew Its Flight School Business License 4 [As Against City and ROES 1 through 100] 5 43. Sling realleges and incorporates by reference each paragraph above, as though fully set 6 forth herein. 7 44. Sling has a beneficial interest in the outcome of the proceedings because it would be 8 allowed to renew its flight school business license and allow Sling to continue its business 9 uninterrupted. 10 45. Sling has a clear, present, and legal right to the City’s ministerial duty to allow Sling 11 to renew its flight school business license. ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP 12 46. The City and Poisson have refused, and continue to refuse, to allow Sling to renew its 13 flight school business license. 14 47. Sling has exhausted all available administrative remedies required to be pursued by it 15 as set forth in the Torrance Municipal to appeal to the LRB and City Council, as set forth above. 16 48. Sling lacks any plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy to challenge City and 17 Poisson’s decisions to refuse to allow Sling to renew its flight school business license because no 18 provision of Torrance Municipal Code, statute or common law provides a legal cause of action for 19 such refusals. 20 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 21 (Writ of Prohibition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1102 to Compel City and 22 Poisson to Allow Sling to Renew Its Flight School Business) 23 [As Against City, Poisson, and ROES 1 through 100] 24 49. Sling realleges and incorporates by reference each paragraph above, as though fully set 25 forth herein. 26 50. Since October 14, 2024, City and Poisson refuse to allow Sling to renew its flight 27 school business license. These refusals are threatened judicial acts to not allow Sling to renew, where 28 the failure to allow Sling to renew its business license is a failure in their ministerial duties to send the 10 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR PROHIBITION 1 renewal notice to Sling, let Sling pay the renewal fee, and issue Sling its renewed flight school business 2 license. 3 51. Both the City and Poisson’s actions are exercising judicial functions in refusing to 4 allow Sling to renew its flight school business license. 5 52. The City and Poisson’s intent, unless prohibited, is to act or continue to act without or 6 in excess of their jurisdiction by enforcing the invalid and unenforceable Resolution No. 77-215 and 7 the Torrance Airport Master Plan. 8 53. Sling has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, other than 9 the relief it seeks in this Petition, in that this matter is not otherwise reviewable in a manner that 10 provides Petitioners with an adequate remedy at law. 11 54. Sling has exhausted all available and non-futile administrative remedies it is required ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP 12 to pursue under law. 13 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 14 WHEREFORE, Sling respectfully prays for judgment against Respondents, and each of them, as 15 follows: 16 1. For a writ of administrative mandamus pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 17 1094.5 commanding City to vacate its denial of Sling’s appeal to the City Council. 18 2. For a writ of traditional mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 19 commanding City and Poisson to allow Sling to renew its flight school business license. 20 3. For a writ of prohibition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1102 and 1103 21 to prohibit City and Poisson from refusing to allow Sling to renew its flight school 22 business license 23 4. For Petitioners’ costs of suit. 24 5. For attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021.5 and 1032 25 and/or other applicable law. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 11 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR PROHIBITION 1 6. For such other and future relief as the Court deems just and proper. 2 3 DATED: December 18, 2023 DAVID M. SHABY II & ASSOCIATES, APC 4 5 By:______________________________ 6 David M. Shaby II, Esq. R. Christopher Harshman, Esq. 7 Attorneys for Petitioner SLING FLYING CLUB, LLC DBA SLING PILOT 8 ACADEMY 9 10 11 ORBACH HUFF & HENDERSON LLP ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP 12 13 By:________________________ Stan M. Barankiewicz II, Esq. 14 Attorneys for Petitioner SLING FLYING CLUB, LLC DBA SLING PILOT 15 ACADEMY 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR PROHIBITION 1 VERIFICATION 2 I, the undersigned, declare: 3 I am the petitioner in this action. All facts alleged in the above document are true of my own 4 personal knowledge. I have read the above Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate, Traditional 5 Mandate, Or Prohibit and know its contents. All facts alleged in the petition are true of my own 6 personal knowledge. 7 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this 8 declaration was executed on December 18, 2023 at Torrance, California. 9 10 11 ____________________________________ ORBAC H HUF F & HE NDE RSON LLP 12 Matt Liknaitzky, Co-CEO Sling Pilot Academy 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS, TRADITIONAL MANDATE, OR PROHIBITION