7th Street Partners v. City of Santa Monica CA2/4

Filed 3/19/26 7th Street Partners v. City of Santa Monica CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

7th STREET PARTNERS LLC, B347190

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 25STCP00678) v.

CITY OF SANTA MONICA,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Curtis A. Kin, Judge. Affirmed. Ada R. Cordero-Sacks and Tracey K. Merrell for Plaintiff and Appellant. Heidi von Tongeln, Interim City Attorney, Romy Ganschow, Chief Deputy City Attorney, and Denise McGranahan, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 This appeal concerns two sheets of yellow paper. Appellant 7th Street Partners LLC (7th Street) filed a petition for writ of mandate, claiming that two tenant relocation orders it received from respondent City of Santa Monica (City) did not include any notice of appeal rights or instructions on how to file an appeal. The City brought a motion for sanctions under section 128.7, which requires parties and counsel to certify that their allegations have evidentiary support. (§ 128.7, subd. (b)(3).) The City explained that the relocation orders were issued using forms, pre-printed in triplicate carbon copy; the top white copies were retained by the city, the middle yellow copies were mailed to 7th Street, and the bottom pink copies were mailed to the tenants. Instructions for appeal are printed on the back side of each copy. The City submitted a declaration from Benson Reed, the officer who issued the orders, testifying that he mailed the forms “through office procedures” on January 17, 2024, and sent a courtesy notice of the front side of the yellow copy to 7th Street by email the same day. The City attached its own, two-sided copies of the orders to the motion. 7th Street opposed the motion on the grounds that a Public Records Act request for the City’s documents related to these orders only resulted in production of the front side of the order. 7th Street’s agent submitted a declaration testifying that he received the courtesy email sent by Reed.