SEACALL

Seacall Development, Ltd. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 627·73 Cal. App. 4th 201·86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 229·99 Daily Journal DAR 6721·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5239
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 30, 1999B122382California2,393 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

Seacall Development, Ltd. (Seacall) appeals from an order denying its motion to be relieved from a judgment of dismissal for failure to prosecute. We reverse and direct the trial court to grant the motion.

Facts and Proceedings Below

Seacall, a landlord, requested rent increases from respondent Santa Monica Rent Control Board (Board) for 11 of its condominium units.

In September 1994 Seacall, displeased with the amounts of the increases the Board allowed, filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate. Seacall was represented before the Board and on the petition by Attorney Brenda Barnes.

In September 1995, a year after filing the petition, Barnes wrote to the Board requesting it to prepare the administrative record.

Nearly a year later, in August 1996, Barnes wrote to the Board requesting the hearing portion of the record be provided to her on a computer disk. In that letter she stated her goal was to obtain a decision on the writ petition by the end of 1996.

In September 1996, two years after the petition was filed, the trial court sent Barnes an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute citing, inter alla, Code of…

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.