Ciraulo v. City of Newport Beach
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
JOSEPH CIRAULO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, Defendant and Respondent. | G034963 (Super. Ct. No. 03CC11638) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, William M. Monroe, Judge. Affirmed.
Kevin E. Monson for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Robin L. Clauson, City Attorney, and Daniel K. Ohl, Deputy City Attorney; Rutan & Tucker and Philip D. Kohn, for Defendant and Respondent.
Joseph and Carole Ciraulo appeal from the trial court's order denying their petition for a writ of mandate. The Ciraulos had sought an order requiring the City of Newport Beach (the City) to grant them a variance from the ordinary strictures of its building code, and thereby allow then to retain the portion of their newly-built home which had been constructed in violation of that code. The Ciraulos argue the trial court's order must be reversed for two reasons: First, they assert the court abused its discretion in denying their request to take limited discovery to augment the administrative record in support of their estoppel claim; and second, they contend the court prepared an insufficient statement of decision.
For its part, the City contends not only that both the trial court's discovery order and its statement of decision were proper, but that the Ciraulos' mandate petition was not timely filed and served, and should have been denied on that basis alone.
We affirm the trial court's decision. In our view, the mandate petition was timely, as the applicable statute of limitations was stayed until the City actually served the written notice required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6.[1] However, we also conclude the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the Ciraulos' request to take discovery. Their proposed augmentation was in support of their claim the City should be â€
