Plotkin

Plotkin v. SAJAHTERA, INC.

Good Law
106 Cal. App. 4th 953·131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 303·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 320·2003 Daily Journal DAR 2508·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2012
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 4, 2003B156195California4,360 words

Opinion

Opinion

Woods, J.

Adam Plotkin filed a lawsuit in class action against defendant Sajahtera, Inc., the owner and operator of the Beverly Hills Hotel (the Hotel). Plotkin had been an overnight guest at the Hotel. The gravamen of the complaint was that the Hotel failed to give members of the public notice of the valet parking charge. The court entered a judgment in favor of the Hotel after granting two separate summary adjudication/ summary judgment motions in its favor. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Synopsis

I. The Complaint

The operative pleading, the second amended complaint (SAC), alleged nine causes of action based upon violations of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) and common and/or statutory law. The complaint is based on two theories: (1) valet parking at the Hotel violated certain provisions of the BHMC that govern the size and very specific location of signs for parking charges at a vehicle parking facility; and (2) independent of the BHMC, the Hotel failed to provide Plotkin notice of the $21 a night charge for valet parking during his stay at the Hotel.

II. First Summary Adjudication Motion

The SAC is based in part on alleged violations of BHMC section 4-4.202 and…

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.