Jordan T. Smith
T 213.626.8484
F 213.626.0078
E [email protected]
350 South Grand Avenue
37th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
rwglaw.com
March 5, 2025
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jacqueline Marie Pal
C/O Edgar Saenz, Esq.
Law Office of Edgar Saenz
8921 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 101
Los Angeles, CA 90045
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & U. S. MAIL
Aaron Klapper
The Klapper Group/eXp Realty of California, Inc.
424 CA-1
Hermosa Beach, CA
[email protected]
Aaron Klapper
The Klapper Group/eXp Realty of California, Inc.
2603 Camino Ramon, Suite 200
San Ramon, CA 94583
Re: Notice of Lien Hearing regarding recovery of nuisance abatement costs for 1467 11th Street, Manhattan Beach
Dear Mr. Klapper, Ms. Pal, Mr. Saenz, and Estate of Mr. Douglass Aziz:
My office represents the City of Manhattan Beach (“City”). The City is aware that you are the listing agent of real property at 1467 11th Street in Manhattan Beach, also known as Los Angeles County Tax Assessor’s Parcel Number (“APN”) 4167-001-025 (“Property”), which the City understands is currently owned by the estate of Mr. Douglass Aziz, for whom Ms.
Jacqueline Pal is serving as the executor, who is represented by Mr. Edgar Saenz.
As you are likely aware, the City has been involved in a several-years long attempt to abate several nuisances at the Property, including but not limited to the City’s lawsuit against Mr. Aziz Aaron Klapper
March 5, 2025 Page | 2
which was filed on May 3, 2021. As part of that lawsuit, the City successfully obtained a preliminary injunction on March 23, 2022, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. As part of this injunction, the Court ordered Mr. Aziz to refrain from further violating the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code and to abate the existing nuisances on his property.
To date, the City has expended $112,445.15 to abate the nuisances at the Property as alleged in the City’s lawsuit. Attached to this letter as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the City’s itemized written report of the costs incurred related to the abatement of nuisances on the Property.
This letter serves as official notice that on May 20, 2025, under Manhattan Beach Municipal Code Chapter 9.68, subsections 130 and 140, the City will hold a City Council hearing to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in abating the nuisances at the Property, which is currently $112,445.15, plus any additional city costs and legal incurred in connection with abating the nuisance and/or holding the City Council hearing. Upon approval of the record of the City’s costs of abatement, the City will then either record a nuisance abatement lien pursuant to the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code against the Property or impose a special assessment pursuant to the Code against the Property.
If you have any questions regarding the City’s nuisance abatement at the Property or the May 20, 2025 City Council hearing to approve the City’s abatement cost report, please do not hesitate to contact Quinn Barrow, City Attorney, at (213) 626-8484.
Sincerely,
Jordan T. Smith
Attachment(s)
cc: Quinn Barrow, City Attorney
12100-0082\3084333v1.doc
EXHIBIT A
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Southwest District, Torrance Courthouse, Department B
21TRCV00335 March 23, 2022
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. vs
DOUGLAS CAMERON AZIZ
10:00 AM
Judge: Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: J. Ahn ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: M. Fondon Deputy Sheriff: None
Minute Order Page 1 of 4
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): Jordan Smith for Robert Pierce (Telephonic) For Defendant(s): Douglas Cameron Aziz (Self Represented Litigant)
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction Matter is called for hearing.
The above captioned motion is held.
Plaintiff submits on the Court's tentative ruling, and the Defense argues the motion.
The Court having fully considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, adopts the tentative ruling as a final ruling as follows:
1. City of Manhattan Beach’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction City of Manhattan Beach’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is granted.
Background
Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on May 3, 2021. Plaintiffs alleges the following facts: Defendant owns real property located at 1467 11th St., Manhattan Beach - APN 4167-001-025 ("Property").
Defendant is maintaining the following nuisance conditions: discharge of storm water into the municipal sewer system, discharging paint onto the curb, altering or demolishing a building on the property without permits, maintaining the residence in an unsafe condition, and allowing for the accumulation of junk on the property. Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: 1.
Public Nuisance; 2. Public Nuisance; 3. Declaratory Relief.
Request for Judicial Notice
Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452(b)(c) and
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Southwest District, Torrance Courthouse, Department B
21TRCV00335 March 23, 2022
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. vs
DOUGLAS CAMERON AZIZ
10:00 AM
Judge: Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: J. Ahn ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: M. Fondon Deputy Sheriff: None
Minute Order Page 2 of 4
(h).
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiff moves for a preliminary injunction as follows: “[A]gainst defendant Douglas Cameron Aziz (“Defendant”), and each and all of his agents, employees, representatives, officers, directors, and any and all persons acting in concert with him, to enjoin and restrain them from allowing, maintaining, permitting, and/or facilitating the following conditions on the real property located at 1467 11th Street, Manhattan Beach, California, and also known as Los Angeles County Tax Assessor’s Parcel Number 4167-001-025 (“Property”): 1. Any condition on the Property constituting a public nuisance under the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code or the laws of the state of California; 2. The drainage of any non-storm water into the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) at or from the Property; 3. The repairing, adding to, altering, relocating, demolishing a building at the Property, and/or causing such work to be performed, without first obtaining the required permits; 4. The construction of or addition to any makeshift kayak slide on or above any building on the Property; 5. The accumulation of junk, trash, debris, building materials, rocks, and/or pieces of concrete at the Property not subject to any valid building permit; and 6. The removal of any yellow tags placed on the Property by the City indicating that the Property is fit for “Restricted Use” only.” (Notice of Motion, page 2, lines 6-24).
“In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the trial court considers two related factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff [or cross-complainant] will prevail on the merits of its case at trial, and (2) the interim harm that the plaintiff [or cross-complainant] is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as compared to the harm that the defendant [or cross-defendant] is likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction. The latter factor involves consideration of such things as the inadequacy of other remedies, the degree of irreparable harm, and the necessity of preserving the status quo.” 14859 Moorpark Homeowner’s Assn. v. VRT Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1396, 1402.
As to the first factor, Plaintiff has established a likelihood of success on the merits its claims.
Plaintiff submitted competent evidence including the declaration of Code Enforcement Supervisor Gilbert Quijada, as well as corroborating photographs showing that Plaintiff is not in compliance with the Municipal Code as follows: Defendant discharged non-storm water into the MS4. Defendant repaired, altered, relocated, or damaged a building on the property without permits. Defendant has constructed a makeshift kayak slide. Defendant accumulated junk, building materials, rocks, and/or concrete without permits. Defendant removed the City’s yellow
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Southwest District, Torrance Courthouse, Department B
21TRCV00335 March 23, 2022
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. vs
DOUGLAS CAMERON AZIZ
10:00 AM
Judge: Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: J. Ahn ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: M. Fondon Deputy Sheriff: None
Minute Order Page 3 of 4
tags, which were placed on the Property by the City’s code enforcement personnel. (Decl., Quijada, ¶¶ 4-18.)
Defendant does not meaningfully dispute these claims with competent evidence. Instead, Defendant argues that any violations were not material or harmful and/or that Defendant has complied or is attempting to comply. No competent evidence has been submitted to show that Defendant has complied with the Municipal Code other than Defendant’s self-serving statements. In addition, the Court notes that the exhibits attached to Defendant’s opposition are not authenticated. Therefore, Plaintiff has met its burden to show that it is likely to prevail on the merits at trial.
“[T]he legislature has the power to declare certain uses of property a nuisance and such use thereupon becomes a nuisance per se.' [Citation.] ... Nuisances per se are so regarded because no proof is required, beyond the actual fact of their existence, to establish the nuisance. Cities are constitutionally authorized to make and enforce within their limits all local, police and sanitary ordinances and other such regulations not in conflict with the general laws. Government Code section 38771 provides, “By ordinance the city legislative body may declare what constitutes a nuisance.” “[E]ven without this section cities would have the power to abate public nuisances (Code Civ. Proc., § 731)[.] City of Costa Mesa v. Soffer (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 378, 382–383 (internal citation and quotations omitted; emphasis in original).
As to the second factor, Plaintiff has established that the harm that it is likely to suffer if the injunction is denied is greater than the harm that Defendant may suffer if the injunction is granted. Plaintiff has provided evidence to show that the Defendant’s maintaining of the conditions outlined above is causing harm to the public. (Decl., Quijada, ¶¶ 4-19.) Defendant has not provided competent evidence to show that the harm he may suffer is greater than the harm that may engender to the public. “Defendants, of course, cannot claim harm from any restrictions in the activities that constitute the public nuisance.” People ex rel. Reisig v. Acuna (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 866, 882. “Where a governmental entity seeking to enjoin the alleged violation of an ordinance which specifically provides for injunctive relief establishes that it is reasonably probable it will prevail on the merits, a rebuttable presumption arises that the potential harm to the public outweighs the potential harm to the defendant.” IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 72.
The Court notes that a primary focus of Defendant’s opposition is his contention that Plaintiff should not be awarded the requested attorneys’ fees of $40,623.45. It is unclear where this argument originated as the notice of motion, declarations, and memorandum of points and
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Southwest District, Torrance Courthouse, Department B
21TRCV00335 March 23, 2022
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. vs
DOUGLAS CAMERON AZIZ
10:00 AM
Judge: Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: J. Ahn ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: M. Fondon Deputy Sheriff: None
Minute Order Page 4 of 4
authorities make no mention of any request for attorneys’ fees.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is granted.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
The Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by People of the State of California, City of Manhattan Beach on 01/21/2022 is Granted.
Case Management Conference is scheduled for 7/20/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department B at Torrance Courthouse.
Plaintiff's counsel to give notice.
EXHIBIT B
Invoice Date Invoice Number Fees Hard Cost Soft Cost Total 10/20/2020 228976 6,642.50 0.00 0.00 6,642.50
11/11/2020 229199 123.75 155.19 0.50 279.44
1/20/2021 230213 297.00 0.00 0.00 297.00
2/22/2021 230676 175.95 0.00 0.00 175.95
3/19/2021 230968 175.50 0.00 0.00 175.50
5/21/2021 231900 590.15 0.00 0.00 590.15
6/28/2021 232387 1,139.25 36.00 0.00 1,175.25
7/15/2021 232778 11,172.50 150.60 10.74 11,333.84
8/20/2021 233203 6,917.60 98.80 (90.45) 6,925.95
9/17/2021 233607 3,254.10 46.75 49.46 3,350.31
10/15/2021 234031 2,497.30 0.00 0.00 2,497.30
11/11/2021 234464 4,450.30 12.00 0.73 4,463.03
12/8/2021 234808 2,704.70 12.00 0.53 2,717.23
1/26/2022 235422 279.00 0.00 0.00 279.00
2/24/2022 235811 10,317.85 27.48 20.53 10,365.86
3/31/2022 236401 1,290.55 12.00 5.00 1,307.55
4/20/2022 236694 5,069.00 996.50 2.09 6,067.59
5/27/2022 237275 482.40 0.00 0.00 482.40
6/23/2022 237661 361.80 12.50 0.00 374.30
7/31/2022 238242 1,392.40 0.00 4.78 1,397.18
8/16/2022 238411 1,715.00 12.50 1.36 1,728.86
9/30/2022 239145 35.00 0.00 0.00 35.00
10/25/2022 239386 673.00 0.00 0.00 673.00
11/4/2022 239683 311.20 0.00 0.00 311.20
12/15/2022 240427 60.30 0.00 0.00 60.30
3/21/2023 241650 1,353.30 18.95 1.50 1,373.75
4/12/2023 242194 427.05 0.00 0.60 427.65
5/31/2023 242497 100.70 0.00 0.00 100.70
7/24/2023 243330 434.00 0.00 0.00 434.00
9/29/2023 244427 658.00 0.00 0.00 658.00
10/17/2023 244714 164.50 0.00 0.00 164.50
11/22/2023 245296 342.60 0.00 0.00 342.60
1/22/2024 246095 2,540.60 0.00 1.83 2,542.43
2/21/2024 246509 6,727.50 0.00 0.00 6,727.50
3/31/2024 247151 343.20 0.00 0.00 343.20
4/19/2024 247385 2,849.70 0.00 2.28 2,851.98
5/29/2024 247940 9,268.50 0.00 163.78 9,432.28
6/30/2024 248500 1,214.40 0.00 0.00 1,214.40
7/11/2024 248664 389.40 0.00 0.00 389.40
8/29/2024 249322 202.50 0.00 0.00 202.50
9/17/2024 249511 2,681.10 0.00 1.59 2,682.69
10/21/2024 250149 5,664.60 16.95 44.63 5,726.18
11/29/2024 250646 1,711.80 0.00 0.00 1,711.80
12/19/2024 251084 3,983.00 0.00 561.99 4,544.99
1/31/2025 251594 3,947.40 0.00 81.11 4,028.51
2/18/2025 251775 2,840.40 0.00 0.00 2,840.40
109,972.35 1,608.22 864.58 112,445.15