Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

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

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: B347190

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

1 We resolve this appeal by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud.
Admin., § 8.1.) We summarize the factual and procedural background
because the parties are familiar with those details and our opinion is
unpublished. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) The request
for judicial notice filed on September 29, 2025, is denied. Undesignated
statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

2
The trial court granted the motion for sanctions, ordered 7th Street and
its counsel, Ada R. Cordero-Sacks, to pay $9,360 to the City’s counsel, and
ordered 7th Street to file an amended petition within 30 days.
We review this order for abuse of discretion; we do not substitute our
judgment for that of the trial court and reverse only if there has been a
manifest miscarriage of justice. (Peake v. Underwood (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th
428, 441.)
7th Street concedes that the notice of appeal rights and instructions for
appeal are printed on the back side of the orders. Yet 7th Street presented
nothing to show it failed to receive the orders in the mail. 7th Street focuses
on an alleged ambiguity in how Reed described the act of mailing. In
paragraph 7 of his declaration, Reed testified he handed the orders to a
specialist to be mailed, “following office protocols,” while in paragraph 8,
Reed testified that his practice is to mail orders “through office procedures,”
and in paragraph 10 he simply says he “mailed” the orders. These are not
contradictory statements. All three indicate that Reed’s office has a
procedure for mailing items and Reed followed that procedure. Items that
have been mailed are presumed received. (Evid. Code, § 641.)
7th Street also relies on the City’s response to its Public Records Act
request. But that response is irrelevant for two reasons: (1) the issue is what
7th Street received, not what the City retained and (2) 7th Street had already
been provided with the City’s copies of the orders, which were two-sided.
Further, as the trial court pointed out, 7th Street submitted copies of the
front sides of the two order sheets at issue as exhibits C and D to its petition.
It did not submit copies of the back sides of those sheets, despite that being
the best evidence of what was or was not printed there. Given 7th Street’s
failure to submit what should be the strongest and most direct evidence of its

3
position, the trial court was entitled to discredit the remainder of its
submission. (Evid. Code, § 412.)
Section 128.7, subdivision (c)(1) requires that a motion for sanctions be
served 21 days in advance of filing, so the recipient can withdraw or correct
the challenged pleadings rather than face the motion. 7th Street argues that
because the City filed its answer to 7th Street’s writ petition immediately
after serving the motion, 7th Street could not withdraw or correct the petition
without a motion or stipulation. This argument answers itself—7th Street
could have corrected the petition by stipulation. It did not, because it
preferred to maintain the challenged allegations.
Finally, 7th Street argues the trial court should not have directed it to
remove its request for a traditional writ of mandate because there were
alternative theories that would support such a writ. But that portion of the
trial court’s order is not part of this appeal, because it is not presently
appealable. (Deck v. Developers Investment Co., Inc. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th
808, 825.) Only the portion of the court’s order awarding monetary sanctions
is presently appealable. (Ibid.; see also § 904.1, subd. (a)(12).)
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding monetary
sanctions under these circumstances. Therefore, we affirm. We close,
however, with a warning to appellant’s counsel. The opening and reply briefs
launch overheated attacks on the trial judge and the City, accusing each of
bias based on simple disagreements. These comments “detract from counsel’s
legal arguments” and “risk obscuring any meritorious arguments they may
have.” (WasteXperts, Inc. v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. (2024) 103
Cal.App.5th 652, 667.)

4
DISPOSITION
The order of the trial court awarding monetary sanctions is affirmed.
The City shall recover its costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

ZUKIN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

MORI, J.

TAMZARIAN, J.

5