Representative Clients:
Private Companies/Entities

Allnet Communications Services, Inc.

The Firm represented Allnet Communications Services, Inc. from 1984 through 1986 with respect to City of Los Angeles Zone Variance 85-0593, a variance to permit the continued use and maintenance of a microwave communication facility in a single-family residential zone and compliance with CEQA.

Anaheim Stadium Associates, Inc.

The Firm represented Cabot, Cabot & Forbes and Trammell Crow Company, two members of Anaheim Stadium Associates, Inc., a commercial entity established adjacent to the Anaheim Stadium Complex in the County of Orange, in litigation entitled Anaheim Stadium Associates, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 614682, filed January 1990, which challenged the sufficiency of the environmental impact report associated with the Anaheim Sports Arena Complex also located adjacent to Anaheim Stadium. The matter was settled in June 1990. The Firm continues to represent Trammell Crow Company with respect to compliance with the City of Anaheim’s environmental assessment obligations in connection with the extension of the ground lease of Anaheim Stadium Associates, Inc.

Andrew Anderson, et al.

The Firm represented a series of landowners in the City of Lancaster ("City") in litigation entitled A.E. Anderson, et al. v. City of Lancaster, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. MS 000107, opposing a conditional use permit for a religious-oriented school to expand in a single-family residential area on the basis of inconsistency with the City's General Plan and its failure to comply with CEQA. The case settled in August 1990 with certain additional conditions being added to the conditional use permit and payment of the landowners' attorneys' fees.

Jim Bess

The Firm represented Jim Bess Auto Dealership in administrative hearings before the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles ("County") in 1987. The matter concerned a proposed expansion by the County of a freeway overpass on State Route 134, the Ventura Freeway. The action involved a challenge to the Negative Declaration for the project under CEQA.

Great American Savings

The Firm has produced several due diligence letters regarding improved real property utilized by Great American Savings with respect to applicable land use and environmental constraints.

Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc.

The Firm represented Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. in 1983 in an action against the City of Los Angeles concerning certain public works projects adjacent to Universal City and the City's compliance with CEQA. The matter was resolved to the satisfaction of the client preserving a means of access to its facilities,

JMB Realty

The Firm has prepared several due diligence letters for acquisition of improved real property by JMB Realty regarding environmental and land use constraints within the charter cities of Los Angeles, Anaheim and Santa Ana and the general law City of Orange and the Coto de Casa development in the then unincorporated portions of Orange County.

Montevideo Country Club

In 1986, the Firm analyzed the legal sufficiency of an environmental impact report associated with County of Los Angeles entitlements to use authorizing the construction of the Montevideo Country Club, a proposed destination resort, lodge and country club located in the Topanga Canyon area of the County of Los Angeles.

Network Auto Body, Inc.

The Firm represented Network Auto Body, Inc., an auto body business in the City of Los Angeles ("City") is an action entitled Network Auto Body, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. C704925, filed November 9, 1988, settled April 1991, which confirmed the validity of City land use entitlements for the Plaintiff.

Pasadena Property Owners

Since 1990, the Firm has represented several individuals in the City of Pasadena who seek to obtain conditional use permits for the development of single-family residences in a hillside areas. The respective projects involve compliance with the City's zoning ordinance and CEQA.

P. & T. Metals, Inc.

The Firm conducted review and representation in 1988 and 1989 in connection with Zone Variance No. 88-258 and Conditional Use Permit No. 88-378 (City of South El Monte) for an aluminum recycling and foundry facility which was denied by the City and was contested in the matter of P. & T. Metal, Inc. v. City of South El Monte, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. C722188.

Rapid Transit Advocates, Inc.

From 1983 through 1985, the Firm represented homeowners in the Hancock Park area of the City of Los Angeles in opposition to the environmental analysis of the MetroRail project under the National Environmental Policy Act in proceedings before the Urban Mass Transit Administration and subsequently in federal court resulting in the reported decision of Rapid Transit Advocates v. Southern California Rapid Transit District, 752 F.2d 373 (9th Cir. 1985).

Soka University of America

The Firm represents Soka University of America ("University") with respect to compliance with CEQA and entitlement proceedings before the County of Los Angeles and State and regional agencies, and represented the University in defending it against challenges to the entitlements granted by the County and the coastal development permit granted by the California Coastal Commission. In Sierra Club v. County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC168998 (Soka University of America, real party-in-interest), the Firm prevailed at the Trial Court for the University, and was reversed by the Second Appellate District, Case No. B128157, in an unpublished opinion. In Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC19221, the Firm obtained a trial court judgment upholding the coastal development permit issued by the California Coastal Commission. The matter currently is on appeal in Case No. B128157.

In 1994 and 1995, the Firm also represented and advised the University in obtaining applicable entitlements to use for a four-year education institution in the Aliso Viejo portion of Orange County.

The Firm served as co-counsel for the University in a matter entitled Soka University of America v. Board of Supervisors of the County of Ventura, et al., Ventura Superior Court Case No. 124322, filed December 17, 1992, which challenged the approval by the Board as the "supervising authority" under Public Resources Code Section 5782.5(c) for the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, a joint powers agency, to use eminent domain to acquire the University's property. On February 16, 1993, the Trial Court granted the University's application for the issuance of a Petition for Writ of Mandate to set aside that action until it complied with applicable law including CEQA and procedural and substantive condemnation provisions.

The Firm also served as co-counsel to the University in a matter entitled Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority v. Soka University of America, etc., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC071672, an action in eminent domain currently pending in the County of Los Angeles Superior Court.

Sport Fun, Inc., et al.

In 1988, the Firm represented industrial landowners within the City of Los Angeles ("City") in challenging a proposed street dedication and whether the City complied with CEQA in proposing the project. The challenge was successful and the City had to perform subsequent analysis and revise the project with respect to its effect on adjacent industrial uses.

Unocal Corporation

The Firm in 1987 and 1988 represented the Unocal Corporation with respect to compliance with CEQA and its removal of oil and natural gas tank farm facilities within the Port of Los Angeles in the City of Los Angeles, and on real estate and construction matters in Orange and Ventura County.

Back to list of Representative Clients