Armato v. City of Manhattan Beach CA2/2

Filed 10/29/14 Armato v. City of Manhattan Beach CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 TWO

NANCY ARMATO et al., No. B252338

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. BS142266) v.

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH et al.,

Defendants and Respondents;

JOSEPH M. PAUNOVICH,

Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Joanne O’Donnell, Judge. Affirmed.

Luna & Glushon and Robert L. Glushon for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Richards, Watson & Gershon and Ginetta L. Giovinco for Defendants and Respondents.

Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell, Benjamin M. Reznik and Matthew D. Hinks for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

Nancy and Rosario Armato (appellants)1 appeal from an order granting a motion for protective order, quashing deposition notices and imposing sanctions of $5,950 on appellants in connection with two depositions noticed in this administrative mandamus proceeding. Appellants claim that the depositions were necessary to obtain evidence of bias, and that the trial court erred in determining that appellants had not provided substantial justification for attempting to obtain this additional evidence. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm the trial court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In October 2012, real party in interest Joseph M. Paunovich (Paunovich) filed an application for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) with the Community Development Department (CDD) to construct a single-family home at 301/303 25th Street in the City of Manhattan Beach, California (the City). Appellants have lived for over 40 years at 2501 Crest Drive in the City, which is uphill and immediately adjacent to the property which was the subject of Paunovich’s application. In December 2012, the CDD approved Paunovich’s application for a CDP. On December 28, 2012, appellants appealed the CDD’s approval of the project to the planning commission. The planning commission upheld the CDD’s approval of the project and denied appellants’ appeal. On February 20, 2013, appellants filed a further appeal to the City council. The City council held a hearing on appellants’ appeal of the project approval. Ultimately the City council voted 3-2 to deny appellants’ appeal. On March 27, 2013, appellants filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the City council’s final decision. In April 2013, appellants filed a first amended petition. On August 16, 2013, appellants filed a motion to amend and file a second amended petition. The motion was made on the grounds that appellants had recently discovered that the City approved revised plans for the project and that a revision permit