Aziz v. City of Maywood CA2/8
Filed 10/14/22 Aziz v. City of Maywood CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
NADIYA AZIZ, B314247
Petitioner and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No.19STCP04963) v.
CITY OF MAYWOOD,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mitchell L. Beckloff, Judge. Affirmed. Roger J. Diamond for Petitioner and Appellant. Richards, Watson & Gershon, T. Peter Pierce, Ginetta L. Giovinco and Sarah E. Gerst for Defendant and Respondent.
_________________________________
Nadiya Aziz appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying her petition for writ of administrative mandamus. She argues that the City of Maywood’s denial of her application for a commercial cannabis license and a conditional use permit (CUP) was not supported by the evidence. She asks us to reverse the trial court’s judgment and to order the City to issue her a commercial cannabis license and a CUP. We conclude that Aziz waived her arguments on appeal by failing to support her claims with any applicable legal authority and by omitting material evidence from her brief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment on grounds of waiver and mootness, and do not determine whether substantial evidence supports the trial court’s judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. The City’s Cannabis Business Regulations In December 2016, the City adopted Ordinance No. 16-03, titled “Code Amendment Permitting Marijuana Businesses in Certain Zones of the City.” The ordinance set forth the procedure and requirements for obtaining a cannabis business license. The City reserved the right to deny a license under certain conditions. In August 2018, the City adopted Ordinance No. 18-12, which amended its existing cannabis business regulations. Ordinance No. 18-12 set forth specific categories of businesses that could be permitted and detailed operational requirements for those businesses. It also listed grounds for denial of an application. To obtain a license, it provided that an applicant would also need to secure a CUP.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)