Court Opinion

ID: 9896307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:05:28.800889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:38.511302
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/9/23 City of Benicia v. Diavitas CA1/5

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on
opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule
8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for pur-
poses of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                    DIVISION FIVE

 CITY OF BENICIA,
          Plaintiff and Respondent,                              A165678
 v.
 JASON DIAVITAS,                                                (Solano County Super. Ct. No.
          Defendant and Appellant.                              FCS056113)

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION1

       In this action to abate a public nuisance, Jason Diavitas
appeals from a judgment enjoining his restaurant’s unpermitted
encroachment on a public sidewalk and assessing related fines,
penalties, and interest. Diavitas has failed to demonstrate any
error in the court’s grant of summary judgment for plaintiffs, so
we affirm.

                                    BACKGROUND

      The City of Benicia, joined by the State of California, filed
this action against Diavitas to prohibit him from maintaining an
unpermitted barrier enclosing a stretch of public sidewalk he

        1 We resolve this appeal by a memorandum opinion

pursuant to Standard 8.1 of the California Standards of Judicial
Administration, and the First Appellate District Local Rules, rule
19.
                                                1
used as an outside dining area for his restaurant. The city
alleged that, although Diavitas had a permit to place tables and
chairs on the sidewalk during business hours, he erected a
permanent perimeter barrier, trellis, and lighting structure
around the area without obtaining the encroachment permit and
agreement required by the Benicia Municipal Code and a city
council resolution. The city’s legal action followed extensive
unsuccessful efforts to bring Diavitas into code compliance and
culminated with its successful summary judgment motion.

                         DISCUSSION

       Diavitas contends the court erred in granting summary
judgment for the following reasons: (1) he had a motion to compel
discovery outstanding when the court ruled; (2) the city’s notices
of violation, administrative citations, and associated fines were
invalid; (3) it had tacitly approved his project; (4) it gave him
inadequate time to abate the encroachment; (5) his project
encroached only two inches into the public right of way, which he
had resolved by cutting into a planter box forming part of the
enclosure; (6) his use of a private building’s common area for
additional restaurant seating did not involve city property; and
(7) the city’s permit process was confusing and arbitrary.

       Diavitas asserts the citations and fines assessed against
him for violating Benicia’s municipal code are invalid because
they were issued before a December 2020 deadline for obtaining
an encroachment permit without paying an associated fee. His
failure to follow the city’s process for appealing administrative
citations bars him from raising this claim here. (See Campbell v.
Regents of University of California (2005) 35 Cal.4th 311, 327.)

      Otherwise absent from Diavitas’s briefs is any pertinent
legal argument supporting his contentions. A judgment or order
is presumed correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to present
reasoned legal argument supporting reversal. (Okorie v. Los
Angeles Unified School Dist. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 574, 599
                                2
(Okorie), disapproved on another point in Bonni v. St. Joseph
Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995, 1012, fn. 2; Boyle v.
CertainTeed Corp. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 645, 649-650.)
Accordingly, the court of appeal will not consider bare allegations
of error unaccompanied by cogent argument supported by
appropriate citations to pertinent authority and the record. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rules 8.204(a)(1)(B), (C); Young v. Fish & Game
Com. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1178, 1190-1191; Elsheref v. Applied
Materials, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 451, 461; Berger v. Godden
(1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1119-1120.) “ ‘Issues do not have a
life of their own: if they are not raised or supported by argument
or citation to authority, [they are] waived.’ ” (Okorie, supra, at p.
600.)

      That is the case here. Diavitas’s briefs lack even minimally
adequate legal argument. He has therefore forfeited his
appellate contentions and failed to meet his burden of
establishing error.

                                DISPOSITION

      The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is entitled to their
costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)

                                                         BURNS, J.

WE CONCUR:

SIMONS, ACTING P.J.
CHOU, J.

City of Benicia v. Diavitas (A165678)

                                        3