Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCP00773, Date: 2024-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Hon. Curtis Kin The clerk for Department 82 may be reached at (213) 893-0530.

Petitioners
Chaar, Inc. and 7-Eleven, Inc. move for an order staying the Decision issued
with respect to the nuisance abatement action concerning a 7-Eleven market.

I.       Factual Background

            Petitioner Chaar, Inc. (“Chaar”) operates the 7-Eleven market located at
6701 W. Santa Monica Boulevard in Los Angeles (“Market”) as a franchisee. (Pet.
¶ 1.) Petitioner 7-Eleven, Inc. is the franchisor. (Pet. ¶ 2.) Petitioners
Chaar, Inc. and 7-Eleven, Inc. (collectively, “7-Eleven”) are co-licensees on
the Type 20 (beer and wine) license issued by the California Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) issued to the Market. (Pet. ¶¶ 1, 2.)

            The Market is a tenant in a one-story commercial
building. (City Ex. 13 at 272.) The other tenants of the building are a donut
shop and a laundromat. Prior to the administrative
decision at issue, the Market operated 24 hours daily. (Pet. ¶ 12; City Ex. 13
at 272.) The donut shop operates 5:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday through
Friday and 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. (City Ex. 13 at 272.)
The laundromat operates 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. (City Ex. 13 at 272.) The
adjacent property to the west is a three-story LGBT youth and senior housing
building. (City Ex. 13 at 273;
City Ex. 7 at 135.) The adjacent property to the east and across Las Palmas
Avenue is a seven-story residential apartment building known as AVA Hollywood. (City
Ex. 13 at 273, 294.)

            On May 29, 2020, respondent City of Los Angeles (“City”)
initiated a nuisance abatement action against the Market. (Pet. ¶ 13.) On
February 15, 2022, an Associate Zoning Administrator (“AZA”) conducted a public
hearing in the nuisance abatement action. (Pet. ¶ 18.) The AZA took the case
under advisement and left the record open for further comment until December
15, 2022. (Pet. ¶18.)

            While the record was left open, a staff investigator conducted
a field investigation, whereby the investigator conducted site visits to twelve
businesses, including nearby 7-Elevens and liquor stores, between 11:00 a.m.
and 1:00 p.m. (Pet. ¶ 19; Evans Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 2 at 16-18.) During the
site visits, the investigator asked questions relating to hours of operation,
on-site security personnel and their working hours, and the type of active
liquor license maintained by the business. (Evans Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 2 at 16-18.)
Petitioners contend, and the City does not dispute, that the field
investigation was not disclosed to petitioners before the AZA issued its
determination in the nuisance abatement action. (Pet. ¶ 20; Opp. at 14:4-5.)

            On March 7, 2023, the AZA issued the Decision in the
nuisance abatement action. (Evans Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 2.) The Market was
determined to be a public nuisance. (Evans Decl. Ex. 2 at 60.) Under the
Decision, the following was required:

the modification of the
operation a convenience store, known as 7-Eleven, located at 6701, 6703, 6705
and 6707 West Santa Monica Boulevard, in order to mitigate adverse impacts
caused by the said operation and any potential impacts caused by any future
operation of the use ….

(Evans Decl. Ex. 2 at 2.)

Conditions on the Market
were imposed, including limiting the operations to 5:00 a.m. through 11:00 p.m.
daily. (Evans Decl. Ex 2 at 4.) The
Decision also imposes conditions regarding the use of the property, the
premises, or the site, as referenced by the following examples:

Condition 5: All graffiti
on the site shall be removed and painted over to match the color of the surface
to which it is applied with anti-graffiti paint within 24 hours of its
occurrence.

Condition 18: The business
operator shall not allow access onto the property by persons known to them to
be prostitutes, pimps, prostitution customers, parolees with prior narcotic or
prostitution offenses, narcotics users, narcotics possessors, narcotics sellers
or manufacturers of illegal controlled substances….

Condition 20(i): The
security guard shall discourage and dissuade patrons who remain on the premises
for more than 20 minutes to leave.

(Evans Decl. Ex. 2 at 2,
4, 5.) The Decision also cited the field investigation which was not disclosed
to petitioners. (Evans Decl. Ex. 2 at 16-18.)

            On March 17, 2023, petitioners filed an appeal to respondent
Los Angeles City Council. (Pet. ¶ 27.) On September 19, 2023, the City Council
upheld the Decision. (Pet. ¶ 29.) On September 27, 2023, the Mayor approved the
Decision. (Pet. ¶ 29.)

II.      Procedural History

On
December 8, 2023, petitioners filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
Pursuant to C.C.P. 1094.5. No Answer has been filed.

On
January 5, 2024, petitioners filed the instant motion. On January 30, 2024,
respondent City of Los Angeles, which includes respondent Los Angeles City
Council, filed an opposition. On February 7, 2024, petitioners filed a reply.

III.     Legal Standard

CCP
§ 1094.5 provides two different standards for a stay. Section 1094.5(h) applies
to administrative orders of any licensed hospital or certain state agencies and
requires the petitioner to show that (1) “the public interest will not suffer”
and (2) the “licensed hospital or agency is unlikely to prevail ultimately on
the merits.” (See also Medical Bd. of California v. Sup. Ct. (1991) 227
Cal.App.3d 1458, 1461.) Because this action is against the City of Los Angeles,
section 1094.5(g) applies here. CCP § 1094.5(g) provides, in pertinent
part:

(g)
Except as provided in subdivision (h), the court in which proceedings under
this section are instituted may stay the operation of the administrative order
or decision pending the judgment of the court, or until the filing of a notice
of appeal from the judgment or until the expiration of the time for filing the
notice, whichever occurs first. However, no such stay shall be imposed or
continued if the court is satisfied that it is against the public interest.

The
administrative stay provision of Section 1094.5(g) “requires the superior court
to weigh the public interest in each individual case.” (Sterling v. Santa
Monica Rent Control Bd. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 176, 187.)

IV.     Analysis

A.          
Evidentiary Matters

7-Eleven’s request to take judicial notice of
Exhibits 1 and 2, sections of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, is GRANTED,
pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(b).

The City’s request to take judicial notice of
Exhibits 1 through 16, portions of the administrative record, is GRANTED. (Evid.
Code § 452(h); Jefferson Street Ventures, LLC v. City of Indio (2015)
236 Cal.App.4th 1175, 1190 [taking judicial notice of administrative record
submitted before trial on petition for writ of mandate].)

The City’s request to take judicial notice of
Exhibits 17 through 19, sections of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, is GRANTED,
pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(b).

The City’s evidentiary objections are OVERRULED.

A.          
Whether Public Interest Would Suffer with Stay

The Court first addresses whether the public
interest would suffer with a stay of the Decision, as no stay “shall be imposed
or continued if the court is satisfied that it is against the public interest.”
(CCP § 1094.5(g).)

7-Eleven contends that it has voluntarily imposed security
measures and property improvements starting in August 2020, including hiring a
nighttime security guard, fencing off a portion of the parking lot in front of
the commercial building to restrict vehicle access, checking the exterior of
the building every hour to pick up litter and prevent loitering and
panhandling, installing two security cameras and additional exterior lighting
for better nighttime visibility, installing a security camera at the front of
the premises to help the clerks monitor the exterior at night, putting up signs
to discourage loitering, installing electronic “mag locks” to prevent persons
posing a problem from entering the Market, and discontinuing the sales of malt
liquor. (Evans Decl. ¶¶ 13, 14, 21 & Ex. 4; Ali Decl. ¶ 4.)

7-Eleven also relies on the testimony of Senior
Lead Officer Brian White, who was the responsible person at the Los Angeles
Police Department (“LAPD”) in the nuisance matter, during the public hearing on
February 15, 2022. (Evans Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12 & Ex. 2 at 24.) Officer White
testified that having a security guard in the parking lot in the evening helps,
closing off the parking lot and putting up the fence did help, lighting in the
lot is key, the mag lock can make things better, there were “[s]ome positive
effects due to the changes made,” and “conditions have been effective.” (Evans
Decl. ¶ 22 & Ex. 2 at 29.) Further, on January 11, 2022, when counsel for
7-Eleven consulted with Officer White regarding conditions to which it would
agree to address the nuisance, conditions which were consistent with the
measures it was already taking, Officer White stated that he was “good with the
conditions as submitted.” (Evans Decl. ¶ 19 & Ex. 3.)

 7-Eleven
also contends that Calls for Service (“CFS”) to LAPD to provide police services
to 7-Eleven’s premises have decreased after 7-Eleven began working with the
LAPD to address the nuisance activity. (Evans Decl. ¶¶ 10, 11, 23.) After the
City pointed out significant inaccuracies in 7-Eleven’s calculations presented
in the motion (Opp. at 10, fn. 3; compare City Ex. 12 at 221 [letter submitted
by counsel for 7-Eleven on 12/15/22] with Evans Decl. ¶ 23), 7-Eleven
admitted to the inaccuracies and withdrew its reliance upon them.  (Kroll Decl. ¶ 8 [“W]hen arguing the
percentage declines in its Opening Brief, Petitioners withdraw those
arguments”].) However, 7-Eleven maintains in reply that the monthly CFS have decreased
by 69% per month from 2019 to 2022 (Kroll Decl. ¶ 9 [decrease from 13.33 CFS
per month in 2019 to 4.13 CFS per month in 2022]).  

            To
determine the effect that 7-Eleven’s measures to mitigate the nuisance on the
subject premises have had on CFS, crimes reported, and arrests, the following
discussion focuses on the time period after August 2020, when 7-Eleven began implementing
mitigation measures.

Notably, 7-Eleven does not address comparative data
presented by the City. From July 15, 2019 to February 16, 2022, when comparing the
subject Market, nine other 7-Eleven markets and 20 other businesses selling
alcohol, the subject Market had the second highest number of CFS (293) and third
highest number of arrests (11). (City Ex. 8, Ex. 13 at 315.) As Detective
Benjamin Thompson testified during the hearing:

I would request that you deny the appeal. The same
activity that I observed occurring from 2017 to 2019, in terms of calls for
service, crimes, arrests from the police department, is continuing to occur in
alarming numbers at and around this business. I have done surveys with crime
statistics from 2019 all the way up through 2022 and I’ve found that business
is still connected to unusual amounts of calls for service and reported
criminal activity. It’s about 100 less than it was from 2017 to 2019 but, still,
it exceeds anything in the immediate area by hundreds of numbers.

(City Ex. 15 at 417-18) While the Court recognizes Officer
White may have taken over for Detective Thompson as Senior Lead Officer (Evans
Decl. ¶ 9), this does not invalidate Detective Thompson’s review of crime
statistics and opinion concerning the nuisance activity that the Market
attracts. Thus, even if the CFS have decreased from year to year, there were
still a relatively high number of CFS and arrests compared to nearby
businesses.

Further, according to LAPD data of the subject
Market, there were 295 CFS between July 2019 to August 2022 (37 months with an average
of 8.0 per month) for theft, disturbance, robbery, narcotics, injuries, assault
with deadly weapons, forgery, battery, trespassing, arson, intoxication,
indecent exposure, disturbance, fights, noise disturbance, burglary,
intoxicated group in vehicle, and others. (City Ex. 12 at 234-49.) Of the 295
CFS, 182, i.e., 62% of the calls, were between 11:00 pm and 5:00 a.m.  In addition, 145 of the 295 CFS were between
September 1, 2020 and August 15, 2022, which is after the August 2020
mitigation measures.  For that period of
23.5 months, there was an average of 6.2 CFS per month.  Further, 83 of the 145 CFS after August 2020 were
between 11:00 p.m. and 5 a.m., which constitutes 57% of the CFS.  (Blau Dec. ¶¶ 8-12.)

Based on the foregoing, even if 7-Eleven’s
voluntary measures have reduced the number of CFS year-by-year, there were still
a significant number of CFS after August 2020 and between the hours of 11:00
p.m. to 5:00 a.m.—the hours when the Market is to closed under the Decision.

            With
respect to crimes reported, 32 crimes were reported between February 23, 2019
and March 18, 2022. (City at Ex. 12 at 251-53.) The crimes were for physical
injuries to customers, punching victims, verbal disputes, robbery at gunpoint,
breaking a glass panel in the door, loud music, use of lighter fluid in front
of entrance in an attempt to ignite the building, and multiple thefts by
individuals and multiple suspects.  Of
the 32 reported crimes, nine (28%) were between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.  Of note, 11 of the 32 reported crimes came after
August 2020.  Of those 11 crimes
occurring after the mitigation measures, three (27%) were between 11:00 p.m.
and 5:00 a.m. (Blau Dec. ¶¶ 13-16.)

Fourteen arrests were made between August 9, 2019
and July 12, 2022. (City Ex. 13 at 255-56.) These arrests include robbery,
battery, vandalism, theft, and trespassing. Of the 14 arrests, eight occurred
after August 2020. (Blau Dec. ¶¶ 17, 18.)

            Thus,
notwithstanding any mitigation measures instituted as of August 2020, a
significant number of reported crimes and arrests continued thereafter, notably
for crimes occurring between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.—the time period the
Decision addresses by requiring the Market to close.

            While
Officer White testified positively about 7-Eleven’s voluntary nuisance
abatement measures, his comments were vague and unsupported by data. With respect
to his assertion that “conditions have been effective,” in particular, it is
unclear how any measures implemented by 7-Eleven have been effective in light
of the foregoing data.

            Moreover,
as meaningful anecdotal evidence, the Hollywood Media Business Improvement
District (“BID”), in which the Market is located, submitted a letter to the
City on July 15, 2022, stating that, despite 7-Eleven’s claim of having
employed nighttime security, “its security service conducted surveillance of
the business in June 2022 and observed the same persistent issues of loitering,
littering, panhandling and a consistently dirty parking lot.” (City Ex. 7 at 136.)
On November 2022, the LGBT Center stated the nuisance continues and clients
have been intimidated, threatened, and subjected to violence from people
shopping at the 7-Eleven. (City Ex. 9.) During the public hearing, a
representative from AVA Hollywood testified that issues arising from the Market
have continued to grow year over year, including trespassing and crimes against
property from customers of the Market. (Evans
Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 2 at 34.)  

            By contrast, 7-Eleven has not presented any argument regarding
how closure of the Market between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. would harm the
public interest.  The record is silent as
to whether the ability to access goods and services from the Market between
11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. would in any way harm—or even inconvenience—the
community.  To the extent that the
franchisee is a member of the public, Chaar asserts that the limitation of
Market hours pursuant to the Decision has caused the Market to lose
approximately $48,000 per month in profit in October and November 2023. (Ali
Decl. ¶ 6.) Further, the Decision prohibits the Market from having an ATM.
(Evans Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 2 at 4 [Condition 10].) Chaar contends that the
ATM prohibition has caused it to lose $5,000 per month in profit. (Ali Decl. ¶¶
6-7.) Chaar avers that the Market now operates at a loss and 8 employees could
lose their jobs if it has to close the Market. (Ali Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.) The losses
asserted by Chaar appear to be inflated on their face and not supported with any
documentary or other evidence regarding how the purported losses were
calculated and the methodology used. 
Indeed, the Declaration of Market operator Anil Ali was made in January
2024, offers vague and conclusory assertions of lost profits in October and
November 2023, and omits and reference to operations in December 2024, thereby
ignoring 33% of the Market’s operations after the Mayor approved the Decision
on September 27, 2023. When this evidence of purported losses is weighed
against the continuing nuisance activity arising from the Market, the interests
of the residents of nearby buildings and the public in general must prevail.

            Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that it would not
be in the public interest to impose a wholesale stay on the Decision.[1]

B.          
Unruh Act

7-Eleven contends that Condition 18 violates the
Unruh Act because it would require 7-Eleven to discriminate against individuals
who have prior criminal pasts, even if they are not being disruptive. (See Civil
Code § 51; Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club (2005) 36 Cal.4th
824, 840, 842 [Unruh Act’s enumerated categories are illustrative rather than
restrictive and includes “categories added to the Act by judicial construction”].)

Condition 18 states: “The business operator shall
not allow access onto the property by persons known to them to be prostitutes,
pimps, prostitution customers, parolees with prior narcotic or prostitution
offenses, narcotics users, narcotics possessors, narcotics sellers or
manufacturers of illegal controlled substances.” (Evans Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 2
at 4.)  

“[U]nder the Unruh Act entrepreneurs must generally
exercise [the] legitimate interest [of protecting their enterprises from
improper and disruptive behavior] directly by excluding those persons who are
in fact disruptive.” (Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d
721, 740.) The activities implicated by Condition 18 are disruptive activities.
Condition 18 requires 7-Eleven to limit access to individuals known by it or
its employees to conduct nuisance activity. The City does not seek to “exclude
an entire class of individuals on the basis of a generalized prediction that
the class ‘as a whole’ is more likely to commit misconduct than some other
class of the public,” as prohibited by the Unruh Act. (Id. at 739.) If
an employee of 7-Eleven has seen a particular individual using or selling
narcotics or participating in prostitution at the premises, prohibition of that
individual would not be based on that individual’s personal, protected
characteristics, like race, sex, nationality, but because that person has
committed nuisance activity before. Like a felon who is not protected by the
Unruh Act (see Semler v. General Electric Capital Corp. (2011) 196
Cal.App.4th 1380, 1402), past nuisance activity by a particular individual
known by 7-Eleven is indicative that the individual will commit nuisance
activity again.

Condition 18 does not violate the Unruh Act.

C.          
A Limited Stay is Required

Although the Court finds that a wholesale stay is
not in the public interest, the Court finds that the conditions must be
modified because they are overbroad with respect to the property, premises, and
site to which they pertain. The AZA required the modification of the operation
of 7-Eleven, purportedly “located at 6701, 6703, 6705, and 6707 West Santa
Monica Boulevard.” (Evans Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 2 at 2.) However, 7-Eleven is a
tenant of only 6701 W. Santa Monica Blvd. (Thomulka Decl. ¶ 3; Ali Decl. ¶ 3.)
The neighboring donut shop occupies 6705 W. Santa Monica Blvd. (Thomulka Decl.
¶ 4.; Ali Decl. ¶ 3.) The neighboring laundromat occupies 6707 W. Santa Monica
Blvd. (Thomulka Decl. ¶ 4; Ali Decl. ¶ 3.)

On their face, some of the conditions can be read
to require 7-Eleven to manage premises over which it has no control. For
example, Condition 19 states: “The business operator shall inform the Police
Department immediately if any person on the property is engaging in narcotics
activity, or if narcotics paraphernalia is observed on the property.” (Evans
Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 2 at 2.) Because the AZA included 6703, 6705, and 6707 West
Santa Monica Boulevard in the Decision, Condition 19 could be read to require 7-Eleven
to monitor the patrons of the donut shop and laundromat, over which it has no
control, for narcotics activity. The Court finds good cause to impose a stay to
the extent that the Decision pertains to real property located at 6703, 6705,
or 6707 West Santa Monica Boulevard. (See Webster v. Superior Court
(1988) 46 Cal.3d 338, 350 [courts have discretion to determine terms and
conditions of stay].)

V.      Conclusion

          The
motion is GRANTED IN PART. The March 7, 2023 Decision at issue in the petition
for writ of administrative mandate is stayed to the extent that it imposes
conditions pertaining to real property located at 6703, 6705, or 6707 West
Santa Monica Boulevard.

Case Number: 22STCP00773    Hearing Date: February 27, 2024    Dept: 82

Petitioner Guillermo Martinez petitions for a writ of mandate directing respondent Board of Civil Service Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles to set aside the decision affirming real party in interest City of Los Angeles’ termination of petitioner’s employment. Petitioner seeks to be reinstated as a Collection Truck Operator with back pay.  

I.       Factual Background

            Petitioner Guillermo Martinez was employed by real party in interest City of Los Angeles (“City”) as a Collection Truck Operator with the Department of Public Works.[1] (FAP ¶ 1.) On December 21, 2020, the City terminated petitioner’s employment because petitioner tested positive for alcohol or drugs a second time after a follow-up test. (FAP ¶ 8.) Petitioner appealed the termination with the Los Angeles City Civil Service Commission. (FAP ¶ 10.)

            On August 27, 2021, after two days of hearing, the Hearing Examiner sustained the discharge on the ground that dismissal is within the guidelines for a second drug or alcohol offense. (FAP ¶¶ 10-12.) On December 9, 2021, respondent Board of Civil Service Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles sustained the decision of the Hearing Examiner and upheld the discharge. (FAP ¶ 11.)

            Petitioner alleges that the penalty of discharge is excessive because the subject incident was unintentional and excusable. (FAP ¶ 13.) Petitioner was a long-term employee with good performance evaluations. (FAP ¶ 13.) Petitioner took numerous tests since 2017 without incident. (FAP ¶ 13.)

II.      Analysis

The petition is brought under CCP § 1094.5. (FAP ¶¶ 14, 16; FAP at 7:2-4.) “In a section 1094.5 proceeding, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to produce a sufficient record of the administrative proceedings; ‘otherwise the presumption of regularity will prevail, since the burden falls on the petitioner attacking the administrative decision to demonstrate to the trial court where the administrative proceedings were unfair, were in excess of jurisdiction, or showed “‘prejudicial abuse of discretion.’” (Elizabeth D. v. Zolin (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 347, 354.)

A memorandum of points and authorities is required for a noticed motion, including for mandamus. (See CRC 3.1113(a); Local Rule 3.231(b) [describing noticed motion procedure for prerogative writs].) The absence of a memorandum is an admission that the motion is not meritorious and may be denied. (CRC 3.1113(a).) “The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (CRC 3.1113(b); see also Local Rule 3.231(i)(2) [opening brief must cite to administrative record].)

Rule of Court 3.1113 “rests on a policy-based allocation of resources, preventing the trial court from being cast as a tacit advocate for the moving party’s theories”. (Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934.) A reviewing court “will not act as counsel for either party to an appeal and will not assume the task of initiating and prosecuting a search of the record for any purpose of discovering errors not pointed out in the briefs.” (Fox v. Erickson (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 740, 742.) The Court cannot evaluate arguments that are not made in the briefs and cannot make the parties’ arguments for them. (Nelson v. Avondale HOA (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862-63 [argument waived if not raised]; Pfeifer v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1282 [same].)

On July 14, 2022, the Court (Hon. Mary H. Strobel) set the petition for hearing on April 25, 2023. (7/14/22 Minute Order.) The parties stipulated three times to  continue the hearing. (4/10/23 Stipulation; 6/9/23 Stipulation; 10/10/23 Minute Order.) The hearing was ultimately continued to February 27, 2024. (10/10/23 Minute Order.)

Petitioner was ordered to file and serve the opening brief sixty days prior to the hearing date, i.e., December 29, 2023. (10/10/23 Minute Order.) Despite proper notice of the briefing schedule (10/10/23 Certificate of Mailing), petitioner did not file an opening brief.  

Petitioner was ordered to file and serve a reply fifteen days prior to the hearing date (i.e., February 13, 2024, as February 12, 2024 was a court holiday) and lodge the administrative record on the same day. (10/13/23 Minute Order.) Petitioner did not file a reply, nor did petitioner present an administrative record. The operative First Amended Petition does not contain any exhibits which could be deemed the complete administrative record or part of the administrative record.

Because petitioner has not presented an administrative record or filed an opening brief explaining why a writ of mandate should be granted, petitioner has not satisfied the burden of proof under CCP § 1094.5.

III.     Conclusion

The petition is DENIED. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.231(n), real party City of Los Angeles shall prepare, serve, and ultimately file a proposed judgment.