Richeson

Richeson v. HELAL

Good Law
158 Cal. App. 4th 268·70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 18
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 21, 2007B187273California5,160 words

Opinion

Opinion

Flier, J.

In this action, respondents Juanita Richeson and Eugene Kallman seek to compel the closure of Fair Market, a neighborhood market in Santa Monica, California built in the 1920’s and presently owned and operated by appellants Haque and Bakul Helal. Since the 1970’s the market has operated in a store building located at the front portion of the property in question pursuant to a series of conditional use permits. Each of the permits was of a specified duration, subject to extension by the City of Santa Monica (City) after a lengthy public review process. In 2003, the City extended the use permit without a durational limitation, allowing the market to operate indefinitely subject to certain conditions.

Respondents supported the last permit extension before both the planning commission and city council. However, after learning the permit was of indefinite extension, respondents brought suit to compel closure of the market based on two written instruments drafted, executed and recorded at the City’s behest in the late 1980’s, when it approved two onsite condominiums, one now owned by appellants (unit one), the other by respondents (unit two). The first document is a regulatory…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.