Enayati v. City of Santa Monica
Filed 10/19/06 Enayati v. City of Santa Monica CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 SEVEN
| ANDREW H. ENAYATI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B188060 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC085466) ORDER MODIFIYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING; NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT |
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on September 27, 2006 be modified s follows: [1]
On page 8, in the paragraph beginning “Enayati also contends the remedy was inadequate” $3,265 is changed to $3,625 so the sentence reads:
Enayati further contends the remedy was not “economical,” and could only have increased his damages, because the City’s fee of $3,625 per appeal to the planning commission and city council was well in excess of the $1,337.22 fee he is challenging.
There is no change in judgment.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.
_____________________________________________________________________
PERLUSS, P. J. JOHNSON, J. ZELON, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
[1] Enayati’s opening brief asserts in two places that the cost of filing administrative appeals is $3,265 (at pages 18 and 20), the figure appearing in our opinion, and in others $3,625. We have verified from the record that the correct figure is $3,625.
