Enayati v. City of Santa Monica
Filed 2/24/06 Enayati v. City of Santa Monica CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| HAMID ENAYATI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B175471 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SS011735) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Lorna J. Parnell, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Office of Harold E. Griffin and Harold E. Griffin; Law Office of David R. Akin and David R. Akin for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney, Cara E. Silver and Carol E. Kurtz, Deputy City Attorneys for City of Santa Monica, Defendant and Respondent.
_________________________
INTRODUCTION
Hamid Enayati appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his petition for writ of mandate. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) [1] In the proceedings below, Enayati sought an order directing the City of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission to vacate its decision to declare a large Cedar tree on Enayati's property a historic landmark. We conclude, because Enayati failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, that the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider the writ petition. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. The Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance, Santa Monica Municipal Code chapter 9.36.
The City of Santa Monica (the City) adopted a Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance in 1976 and amended it in 1991. (SMMC, § 9.36.010.)[2] The stated purpose of the ordinance, as a matter of public policy, was to â€
