Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fabiola Wright v. City of Los Angeles

April 17, 2012

FABIOLA WRIGHT
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable A. Howard Matz, U.S. District Judge

JS-6; O

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Stephen Montes Not Reported

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Fabiola Wright ("Plaintiff") brings this civil rights action against the City of Los Angeles ("City"), the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety ("LADBS"), and the City of Los Angeles Planning Department ("LACP"). Plaintiff also includes as Defendants the following city officials in their individual and official capacities: Charles Boghoskhan (an LADBS inspector), Siavosh Poursabahian (the Superintendent of West LADBS), Michael Lo Grande (the Chief of Zoning), Anik Charron (the Zoning Administrator), and Christine Mahfouz (the City Planning Director) (collectively "Defendants").

Plaintiff alleges twelve causes of action. Although Plaintiff's Complaint is confusing, the gist appears to be that Defendants violated her 14th Amendment rights to equal protection and due process in the course of erroneously affirming the issuance of building permits for a structure on her neighbor's property. She also includes some state law claims, including under the California Government Code.

Before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, motion for more definite statement.*fn1 The Court finds that the action is barred by res judicata and therefore GRANTS the motion to dismiss.*fn2

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a dispute between neighbors.*fn3 In 2007, Plaintiff's neighbors, Robert and Carol McNeill ("McNeills"), received approval from the City to build a 201 square foot structure in their yard. Plaintiff considers the structure an "eyesore" that has diminished her property values. (Def. RJN. Exh. 9, p. 4.) The structure allegedly violates various ordinances and zoning regulations because, among other things, it is too large, is located two inches from Plaintiff's property line, is used for "band playing," and is a safety hazard. (Compl. ¶ 13.)

When Plaintiff first noticed in July of 2007 that the McNeills were building the structure, Plaintiff asked LADBS to investigate. (Compl. ¶ 22.) Defendant Charles Boghoskan, an LADBS inspector, allegedly visited the property and not only found that the structure was legal but falsely accused Plaintiff of taking six inches from the McNeills's property.*fn4 (Compl. ¶ 23.) Plaintiff claims that what followed was a series of actions from Defendants designed to cover up their erroneous approval of the structure.

A. The Building Permits

The record reflects that LADBS issued five building permits relating to the structure. The first permit authorized the building's construction ("master permit"). The remaining four permits authorized various modifications to the structure and a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.