1041 20th Street v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2019)

Citation: 1041 20th Street v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2019)
Parent Document: 1041 20th Street v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2019)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2019-07-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4644132/1041-20th-street-v-santa-monica... ↗

Full Text

1,294 chars

3      The Board moved to dismiss 20th Street Owner’s cross-
appeal, asserting that plaintiff lacked standing because it was
not aggrieved. “In a mandamus proceeding, just as in a civil
action, ‘[a]ny party aggrieved may appeal’ from the final
judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., . . . §§ [902,] 904.1, subd. (a)(1),
1109.) ‘One is considered, “aggrieved” whose rights or interests
are injuriously affected by the judgment.’ [Citation.] Conversely,
‘[a] party who is not aggrieved by an order or judgment has no
standing to attack it on appeal.’” (El Dorado Irrigation Dist. v.
State Water Resources Control Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 937,
977.) In its cross-appeal, 20th Street Owner seeks only to affirm
the judgment below and argues alternative grounds to affirm.
Because 20th Street Owner does not seek additional relief, it is
not aggrieved and we dismiss the cross-appeal. We will, however,
address 20th Street Owner’s alternative arguments to the extent
they are directly responsive to the Board’s appeal. (See Little v.
Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Bds. (2007) 155
Cal.App.4th 915, 925, fn. 6 [“Respondents are free to urge
affirmance of the judgment on grounds other than those cited by
the trial court”].) 3
                      II. BACKGROUND A.    Santa Monica’s Rent Control Law

Other Sections in This Document (69)

Full Text