SB - Sunshine Motel - Attachment 10 - Appeal Submitted by Bird, et al.

ATTACHMENT 10
Member of the Bar
United States Supreme Court
United States Court of Appeals for Third Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for Fourth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for Tenth Circuit
United States Tax Court.

Master of Law in Taxation

LAW OFFICES
FRANK A. WEISER
3470 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 614
Los Angeles, California 90010
Telephone: (213) 384-6964
Fax: (213) 383-7368
May 14, 2026

BY PERSONAL DELIVERY,

E-MAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
Telicia Lopez
City Clerk
201 North "E" Street, Building 201A
San Bernardino, CA 92401
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: My Clients: James Vernon
Bird and Sunshine Motel/
Operators of Property Located
at 570 N. "H" Street, San
Bernardino, CA 92410/APN No.
0134-051-28-0000/Code Case No.

CE-2348/Notice of Appeal of
Closure of Sunshine Motel and
City Municipal Code Violations
and Administrative Penalties
Dear City Clerk Lopez:
1 represent James Vernon Bird and the
Sunshine Motel, the operators of the property that is commonly known as the Sunshine Motel located at 570 N. "H" Street, San Bernardino, CA 92410 ("Motel").

Refer To File No.
1•3
i=1
CV,
r-r1
rn
C:7 Zre.
-X
CoJ
(4)

Telicia Lopez
City Clerk
201 North "E" Street, Building 201A
San Bernardino, CA 92401
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: My Clients: James Vernon
Bird and Sunshine Motel/
Operators of Property Located
at 570 N. "H" Street, San
Bernardino, CA 92410/APN No.
0134-051-28-0000/Code Case No.

CE-2348/Notice of Appeal of
Closure of Sunshine Motel and
City Municipal Code Violations
and Administrative Penalties
May 14, 2026

Page 2 ends

(By Personal Delivery, E-Mail and Federal Express)
I am writing on behalf of my clients regarding the City of San Bernardino's Community Development Department and Code Enforcement Division ("City") Notices of Violations of the City Municipal and Fire Code ("Notices") that the City issued against my clients on April 29, 2026, May 5, 2026, and May 13, 2026.

I am also writing behalf of my clients regarding the City's summary closure and red tag of the Motel on April 29, 2026 ("Closure").

My clients request an immediate administrative appeal of the Notices and Closure to the City Council, or before a neutral administrative hearing officer that complies with the requirements of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and parallel provisions of the California Constitution.

The grounds for the appeal, include but are not limited to, the following:

1. The City's non-consensual and warrantless inspection by members of your code enforcement division community development department and that has led to my clients receiving the Notices is patently in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The closure of the Motel was done without an abatement warrant required under California Code of Civil Ptocedure Section 1822.50, et seq. and the Fourth Amendment.

CE-2348/Notice of Appeal of
Closure of Sunshine Motel and
City Municipal Code Violations
and Administrative Penalties
May 14, 2026

Page 3 ends

(By Personal Delivery, E-Mail and Federal Express)
The City cannot inspect and close the Motel without a proper warrant or consent under a case that I successfully litigated before the en bane court of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and afterwards as lead counsel before the United States Supreme Court in the case of City of Los Angeles v Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015)(affirming Patel v City of Los Angeles, 737 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2013) (en bane). Under the Patel case the City cannot demand the inspection without a warrant and affording my clients pre-enforcement judicial review.

For example, it was the Patel case that led to the City of Los Angeles to amend its city municipal code, LAMC section 161.601, et seq. to afford property owners the right of pre-judicial review and the right to refuse inspection, the Fourth Amendment affords such a right independent of any municipal ordinance as demonstrated by the Patel case. See Lavan v City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022, 1028-1031 (9' Cir. 2012) (Fourth Amendment search or seizure may occur without regard to right of privacy if it interferes with a plaintiff's possessory interests in his property).

Regardless of whether the City has a legitimate police power interest to investigate nuisance allegations, the Fourth Amendment still applies. See Michigan v Tyler , 436 U.S. 499, 504-07 (1978); Connor v City of Santa Ana, 897 F.2d 1487, 1490 (9' Cir. 1990) ("It is clear that the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment applies to entries onto private land to search for and abate suspected nuisances."). This is also a violation under the revived "common law

CE-2348/Notice of Appeal of
Closure of Sunshine Motel and
City Municipal Code Violations
and Administrative Penalties
May 14, 2026

Page 4 ends

(By Personal Delivery, E-Mail and Federal Express)
trespassory test" regardless of a reasonable expectation of privacy which is reflected in the Lavan case based on United States .Supreme Court precedent. See Florida v Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 6-10 (2013).

The government does not have a common law license to enter a person's property, even in an area not subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy, "in hopes of discovering incriminating evidence." without consent or a warrant. Jardines, 569 U.S. at 9. "There is no customary invitation to do that." Id.

On federal constitutional grounds, independent of the merits of the case, your City officials who entered the Motel and conducted the warrantless inspection without my clients' consent, or an administrative abatement warrant, to not only search but also to abate, is an egregious civil rights violation that mandates, at a minimum, that you rescind immediately the Notices and Closure that was issued against it.

Further, "the State may not finally destroy a property interest without first giving the putative owner an opportunity to present his claim of entitlement." Logan v Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422,434 (1982). See also United States v James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 48 ("Our precedents establish the general rule that individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Government deprives them of property.").

CE-2348/Notice of Appeal of
Closure of Sunshine Motel and
City Municipal Code Violations
and Administrative Penalties
May 14, 2026

Page 5 ends

(By Personal Delivery, E-Mail and Federal Express)
This includes the right to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Buckingham v Sec'y of U.S. Dep't of A_gric., 603 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9" Cir. 2010). There was no emergency exception here that permitted the City to close the motel completely. Further, even if such an exception applied (which it does not), the City is required to give a prompt post-deprivation hearing. See Armendariz v Penman, 75 F.3d 1311, 1320 (9' Cir. 1996) (en banc) (city must provide pre-deprivation hearing before closure of property if non exigent circumstances exist and prompt post-deprivation hearing if such exigent circumstances exist).

Further, on the substantive merits of the case, the Notices and Closure are wholly unfounded. My clients have not caused or maintained a violation of the City municipal code or state or federal law that is alleged to exist on the dates specified in the Notices and Closure.

My clients were issued a valid City business license and health permit ("Licenses") on or about January 1, 2026, and passed multiple City inspections prior to the issuance of the City Licenses.

Nor, prior to the Notices and Closure, did my clients ever receive any notices violations or citations for violations of City municipal code or under any other local, state, or federal law for nuisance activity at the motel, including but not limited to prostitution or other criminal activity.

CE-2348/Notice of Appeal of
Closure of Sunshine Motel and
City Municipal Code Violations
and Administrative Penalties
May 14, 2026

Page 6 ends

(By Personal Delivery, E-Mail and Federal Express)
1 emphasize the egregious and blatantly unconstitutional process by which the City did so, without an abatement warrant and in violation of bedrock due process principles, is shocking and unacceptable.

The City's actions are clearly punitive and not remedial, violating fundamental California policy and the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and the and the Excessive Bail and Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution
The City's actions are also unreasonable and in violation of federal and state law and constitute on federal constitutional grounds a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution Petition and Grievances Clause, the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution Search and Seizure Clause, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution Takings Clause, and, as previously stated, the substantive portion of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause.

Therefore, my clients demand an immediate administrative appeal and that the Notices and Closure that has been issued against them be immediately rescinded and that your City police and code enforcement and building official case against them be closed.

CE-2348/Notice of Appeal of
Closure of Sunshine Motel and
City Municipal Code Violations
and Administrative Penalties
May 14, 2026

Page 7 ends

(By Personal Delivery, E-Mail and Federal Express)
The City and your code enforcement and building official officers, or any City and law enforcement officials are not to enter the motel at any time without my clients' express written consent or a proper warrant or court order signed by a judge of a superior court.

My clients reserve the right to file suit against the City in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for violation of their constitutional rights, which will include substantial monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs.

I can be reached directly at (213) 399-7806 or by e-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
CP" • j
'ILL
Frank A. A. Weiser
Attorney at Law
cc: Clients
N. Sorenson
Lead Code Enforcement Officer
Code Enforcement Division
E-Mail: sorenson [email protected]
Minerva Berumen
Business Registration Manager
E-Mail: [email protected]

Mayor and City CouncilJuly 15, 2026

Mayor and City Council
July 15, 2026