Lim v. City of Los Angeles CA2/8

Filed 4/2/13 Lim v. City of Los Angeles CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

KI HYUN LIM, B238219

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC 437427) v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. Barbara M. Scheper, Judge. Affirmed.

Reyes & Barsoum and Jorge Reyes for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, and Brian I. Cheng, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents City of Los Angeles, Douglas Guthrie and Roberto Aldape.

____________________________________

SUMMARY Plaintiff Ki Hyun Lim made renovations to a “four-plex” he and his sister owned, but did not comply with building codes or obtain a permit. When he received notices of violation from the housing authorities, he paid a Los Angeles city employee, defendant Eun Chavis, $11,000 to “resolve the subject property’s code violations in a safe and legal way.” He continued to receive citations and then hired a contractor recommended by Chavis, but the contractor did not do the work. Plaintiff filed a claim for damages under the Government Claims Act, the claim was denied, and plaintiff then sued the City of Los Angeles (hereafter the city), Chavis and others. The city demurred to plaintiff’s second amended complaint. The trial court sustained the city’s demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the complaint, observing among other things that plaintiff’s government claim was not timely filed. We affirm the judgment of dismissal. FACTS Plaintiff alleged the following facts relevant to this appeal. Plaintiff and his sister acquired property in the city, a “four-plex,” in 2003. They converted it into a boarding house, but did not comply with the city’s building code. Plaintiff’s mother met defendant Chavis in December 2006. Chavis held herself out as a powerful employee of the Los Angeles Housing Department (hereafter housing department or LAHD) who could help plaintiff’s mother if she ever encountered problems in dealing with the housing department. In January 2007, plaintiff received a letter from the housing department saying the property was “not up to code due to code violations and that Plaintiff had made illegal, unpermitted modifications.” Plaintiff’s mother took the letter to Chavis and asked what plaintiff should do. Chavis said the violations needed to be fixed, and she could solve the problem if plaintiff “paid funds [to] EUN CHAVIS, who on behalf of the LAHD would collect the funds to correct the citations, pay for fines and penalties assessed against the Subject Property.” Chavis represented she would help plaintiff “resolve the housing code violations according [to] the applicable code.” Chavis also threatened plaintiff’s mother