People v. Zinn
Filed 4/12/06 People v. Zinn CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. RICHARD B. ZINN, Sr., Defendant and Appellant. | A108676 (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCS020211) |
Appellant formerly operated an auto dismantling business (the business) on property he owned in Solano County (the property). According to appellant, at the time he acquired the property, it was in an unincorporated area of Solano County, and the county had issued him a permit to conduct the business on the property. Respondent City of Fairfield (City) subsequently annexed the property, and placed it in a zoning classification in which, according to the City, operation of an auto dismantling business was not permitted. Appellant's position is that under the terms of the City's annexation of the property, he was entitled to continue to operate the business as a legal nonconforming use, even without a conditional use permit.
On July 19, 2002, the City filed a complaint, on its own behalf and in the name of respondent People of the State of California, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief abating appellant's business as a public nuisance. The City ultimately moved for summary judgment, and on October 15, 2004, the trial court entered a judgment prohibiting appellant from operating the business on the property, and requiring him to remove all inoperable vehicles, salvage materials, and similar items from the property by January 1, 2005. The judgment provided that it could be recorded in order to give notice of its terms to subsequent purchasers of the property. The trial court retained jurisdiction in order to enforce the judgment, and set a hearing on December 21, 2004, to monitor appellant's compliance.
On December 10, 2004, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment. Almost a year later, on December 9, 2005, respondents moved to dismiss the appeal as moot.[1] In support of their motion to dismiss, respondents submitted the declaration of Erin Beavers, a planning official with the City. Beavers avers on the basis of personal observation that as of November 17, 2005, appellant was no longer operating the business on the property, and all wrecked automobiles and parts had been removed.
Appellant filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on March 20, 2006, along with his opening brief. Although appellant's opposition to the motion takes issue with various statements in Beavers's declaration, he does not deny that he has ceased operating the business on the property and has removed the automobiles and parts. Indeed, appellant affirmatively represents that he has sold the property, though he has retained possession of it in order to remove his personal property. Appellant's opposition to the motion does not set forth any grounds for his argument that the case is not moot, but avers only that he â€
