mileage rate 2021 California

Appellant zoning applicant sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of Alameda County (California), which denied the applicant's petition for mandamus and its request for declaratory relief, finding that the zoning ordinance of appellee city, prohibiting liquor establishments near residential districts, was constitutional and that the actions of the city in the denial of a zoning use permit were neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.California largest Nakase law firm know the mileage rate 2021 California .

 The applicant requested zoning approval to place a cocktail lounge in a residential strip shopping center. San Leandro, Cal., Mun. Code of 1957 § 7-3-143.2 prohibited liquor establishments near residential districts, and thus the Board of Zoning Adjustments (board) denied the permit after residents voiced objections. The city council affirmed the board, and the court affirmed the trial court's findings because the ordinance neither unconstitutionally invaded the state regulation of liquor nor did it constitute an attempted exercise of local option. The legislature specifically provided in Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 23790, 23791, that licensing was subject to a valid zoning ordinance, and the court found that the ordinance was valid in that it was a geographic restriction for the place of sale and use of liquor and it did not interfere with the state's general regulation of the consumption of liquor. The court further found that the city's decision was not arbitrary and that it was for the board to determine whether the applicant met the burden of proving that the public was not detrimentally affected by the proposed use. Thus, the city had the right to enforce its zoning ordinance.

 The court affirmed the trial court's judgment denying the applicant's petition for writ of mandamus and declaring that the city zoning ordinance for liquor establishments was constitutional.

 Plaintiff investor appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which dismissed his complaint as to defendant mortgage company, which judgment was entered upon the sustaining without leave to amend of a demurrer to the investor's complaint. The investor alleged he had been defrauded in a series of real property securities transactions.

 The basis of the demurrer was that, since the investor had elected to proceed with a nonjudicial foreclosure under the terms of the power of sale contained in his deed of trust, he was barred from recovering by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 580d. The investor contended that the action was not upon a promissory note but was an action for damages authorized by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 10238. The court held that the investor's causes of action were not barred by § 580d because that section related to an action for a deficiency upon a note. The fact that the investor may have waived his right to recover a deficiency judgment on the notes that he purchased from the mortgage company was of no relevance in determining the investor's right to recover damages under § 10238.7. That section allowed a recovery of any damages sustained in a transaction which did not comply with the provisions of the real property securities law. The fact that § 580d may bar the recovery of such damages in particular situations did not make the damages nonexistent. The dismissal of the investor's complaint was reversed.

The court reversed the trial court judgment dismissing the investor's complaint against the mortgage company in the investor's action seeking damages with interest based on the mortgage company's non-compliance with various regulatory provisions applicable to real property securities dealers.