Electronically Filed

12/11/2019 10:38 PM
Steven D. Grierson
CLERK OF THE COURT

FLANGAS & BARNABI, LLC

1 LEO P FLANGAS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 5637
2 BENJAMIN LA LUZERNE
Nevada Bar No.: 12801
3 375 E. Warm Springs Rd. #104 CASE NO: A-19-806797-W
Las Vegas, Nevada 89109 Department 24
4 Telephone: (702) 475-8903
Facsimile: (702) 966-3718
5 Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
6
Attorney for Petitioners
7

8 DISTRICT COURT

9 CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

10 SOPHIE LAU, an individual; JEFFREY LAU, Case No.:

an individual; GOOD EARTH
11 ENTERPRISES, INC., a California
Corporation; and LIG LAND Dept. No.:
12 DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company
13 PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
Petitioners, AND/OR WRITS OF CERTIORARI,
14 MANDAMUS, AND EQUITABLE
vs. RELIEF
15
CITY OF LAS VEGAS, a political subdivision Exempt from Arbitration NAR 3(A), 5
16 of the State of Nevada; CAROLYN • Action Seeking Judicial Review of
GOODMAN, as Mayor of the City of Las Administrative Decisions
17 Vegas; CITY OF LAS VEGAS • Action for Declaratory Relief
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY, • Action Presenting a Significant
18 CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, a Issue of Public Policy
department of the city of Las Vegas; VICKI • Action Seeking Equitable or
19 OZUNA, Code Enforcement Manager; EMILY Extraordinary Relief
WETZSTEIN, Code Enforcement Assistant;
20 KEVIN MCOSKER, director, Building and
Safety department; JOHN BOYER, as City
21 Council Designee; DOES 1 through X,

22 Respondents.

23

24 COMES NOW, Petitioners SOPHIE LAU, JEFFREY LAU, GOOD EARTH ENTERPRISES,
25
INC. (“Good Earth”), and LIG LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC (“LIG”) (collectively, “Petitioners”),
26
by and through their counsel of record, Benjamin La Luzerne, Esq. of Flangas Barnabi and hereby
27
petitions this Court for judicial review of the Decision and Order of the City Council Designee/
28
1

Case Number: A-19-806797-W

Hearing Officer, John Boyer (the “Designee” or “Mr. Boyer”), dated November, 11, 2019, a copy of
1

2 which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, as follows:

3 I. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

4 1. Petitioners, Sophie and Jeffrey Lau, are individuals residing in the state of California
5 that own that certain real property commonly known as 203 S. 6th Street, Las Vegas, NV 89101, 617
6
& 631 E. Carson Avenue, Las Vegas, NV 89101 and 206 & 210 & 216 & 222 S. 7th Street, Las Vegas,
7
NV 89101,
8
2. Petitioner Good Earth Enterprises, Inc., is a California corporation that owns that
9

10 certain real property commonly known as 215 & 233 S. 6th Street, Las Vegas, NV 89101, 220 & 232

11 S. 7th Street, Las Vegas, NV 89101

12 3. Petitioner LIG Land Development, LLC, is a California Limited Liability Company
13
that owns that certain real property commonly known as 615 E. Carson Avenue, Las Vegas, NV 89101,
14
4. The City of Las Vegas is a political subdivision of the State of Nevada.
15
5. Carolyn Goodman, as Mayor of the City of Las Vegas, is an individual residing in Clark
16
County, Nevada.
17

18 6. The City of Las Vegas Department of Building and Safety – Code Enforcement

19 Division is a Department of the City of Las Vegas, Nevada.

20 7. Kevin McOsker, as director of the City of Las Vegas, Building and Safety Department,
21
is an individual residing in Clark County, Nevada.
22
8. Vicki Ozuna, as Manager of the Code Enforcement Division, is an individual residing
23
in Clark County, Nevada.
24

25 9. Emily Wetzstein, as Assistant to the Manager of the Code Enforcement Division, is an

26 individual residing in Clark County, Nevada.

27 10. John Boyer, as City Council Designee, is an individual residing in Clark County,
28 Nevada.
2
11. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise,
1

2 of Respondents herein designated as DOES I through X, inclusive are unknown to the Petitioners at

3 this time, who therefore sues said Respondents by such fictitious names. Petitioners are informed and
4 believe and therefore allege that each of said Respondents is responsible in some manner for the events
5
and happenings and proximately caused the injuries and damages herein alleged. Petitioners will seek
6
leave to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities as they are ascertained.
7
12. The court has jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 4 of the Nevada Constitution, Las
8
9 Vegas Municipal Code Section 9.04.100(C) 1, NRS 268.4122 and NRS 34.160 and EJDCR 2.15.

10 13. Venue is proper because the acts and actions set forth herein occurred in Clark County

11 Nevada.
12
II. FACTS
13
14. Petitioners are the owners of those certain pieces of real property located between 6th
14
and 7th Streets and Carson Street and Bridger Street in Las Vegas, Nevada.
15
15. Petitioners have owned these parcels for decades.
16

17 16. The City initiated Code Enforcement proceedings against Petitioners regarding these

18 properties, beginning in December 2018.

19 17. Case Number CE-195118 (the “El Cid Matter”) contained allegations pertaining to 233
20
S. 6th Street (“El Cid”); Case Number CE-195119 (the “Annex Matter”) contained allegations
21
pertaining to 232 S. 7th Street (the El Cid “Annex”); and Case Number CE-195540 (the “MI Matter”)
22
contained allegations pertaining to 615 E. Carson (“MI”).
23

24

25
1
The Section states:
26
Pursuant to NRS 268.4122, the City Council or designee may order that civil
27 penalties assessed under this Chapter be made part of an assessment lien
authorized by this Section, but any action to do shall be subject to the limitations
28 contained in NRS 268.4122. In the case of action taken by a designee, an appeal of
that decision may be taken to a court of competent jurisdiction.
3
18. In the El Cid Matter, the case report indicates that the property was inspected on
1

2 December 6, 2018, requests for quotes went out to contractors on December 10, 2018, and quotes were

3 received by the city on December 17, 2018.

4 19. On December 17, 2018, there was a fire at El Cid that the City attempts to use to justify
5 its decision that emergency abatement was necessary.
6
20. Abatement for El Cid was completed by contractor CGI on December 20, 2018.
7
21. At no time did the City provide notice to Petitioners regarding inspection or abatement
8
as required under LVMC 9.04.050(B).
9

10 22. Ms. Lau, on behalf of Petitioners previously hired attorney Andrew Pastwick in April

11 2019 to communicate with the City and attempt to resolve the issues regarding the Petitioners.

12 23. On or about August 30, 2019, Ms. Lau, on behalf of Petitioners engaged Flangas Law
13
Firm, LTD, to represent Petitioners in the Administrative Hearing.
14
24. From December 2018 until the time Ms. Lau hired Flangas Law Firm, the City had not
15
provided backup to support their invoices related to abatement of Petitioners’ properties to Ms. Lau,
16
Mr. Pastwick, or any of the Petitioners, despite their requests. See email from S. Lau to V. Ozuna
17

18 dated January 22, 2019 attached hereto as Exhibit 2

19 25. On or about Septermber 17, 2019, Mr. Flangas and Mr. La Luzerne requested all of the
20 evidence that the City planned to rely upon at the September 25, 2019 hearing. They also requested
21
that the hearing be continued during the call with Ms. Ozuna, which Ms. Ozuna declined.
22
26. Ms. Ozuna indicated that she would provide the evidence, but indicated that because
23
the hearing had been outstanding since February 2019, she was not inclined to continue it again.
24

25 27. The request for documents was formalized in a letter to Ms. Ozuna following the

26 September 17, 2019 call. See letter from B. La Luzerne to V. Ozuna dated September 17, 2019 attached

27 hereto as Exhibit 3.
28
4
28. In response, on September 18, 2019, Ms. Wetzstein provided documents via email that
1

2 purportedly reflected the entire realm of documents regarding the Petitioners.

3 29. Prior to the Hearing (as defined herein) the Petitioners had demolished not only El Cid,

4 the Annex, and MI, but every other building they owned on the block, at their sole expense.
5 30. Prior to the Hearing, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the Hearing notice,
6
Petitioners submitted their objections to the City’s allegations in regard to Case #CE-195118, Case
7
#CE-195119, and Case #CE-195540.
8
31. The Petitioners objections are based on lack of notice, excessive fees and fines, and
9

10 improper procedure for imposing such fees and fines, among other things.

11 32. On September 25, 2019, an administrative hearing was held on the 6th Floor of 333 N.

12 Rancho Dr., Las Vegas NV, 89106, regarding the fines and assessments the City sought to impose on
13
Petitioners (the “Hearing”).
14
33. Petitioners were present and represented by Leo Flangas and Benjamin La Luzerne of
15
Flangas Law Firm, LTD.
16
34. Robert Mann appeared as a witness for Petitioners.
17

18 35. The City of Las Vegas Department of Building and Safety, Code Enforcement Division

19 was present and Represented by Vicki Ozuna, Code Enforcement Manager, and Emily Wetzstein,
20 Assistant to Ms. Ozuna.
21
36. Mr. John Boyer attended and presided over the hearing as the City Council’s Designee.
22
37. On October 14, 2019, Petitioners received an email from Ms. Ozuna that Mr. Boyer
23
had sent to an invalid email address. In that email, Mr. Boyer asked Petitioners to provide their position
24

25 to his assertion that Petitioners lacked standing to defend themselves at the Hearing (the “Email”).

26 38. On October 15, 2019, after receiving and analyzing the Email, Petitioners responded

27 that such a position by the City would lead to an absurd result. See email from B. La Luzerne to J.
28 Boyer dated October 15, 2019 attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
5
39. Nonetheless, in his final decision dated November 18, 2019 (the “Decision”), Mr.
1

2 Boyer relies on the clearly erroneous assertion that Petitioners lack standing.

3 40. Furthermore, Mr. Boyer states in the Decision that “Copies of the Notices and Orders

4 are included in the Binder A as supplemented by the City after the hearing.” (Emphasis added.)
5 41. The Decision further relies on evidence not in the record or provided to Petitioners
6
before the Hearing.
7
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
8 (Petition for Judicial Review)
9
42. Petitioners repeat and reallege all prior paragraphs as fully set forth herein.
10
43. Petitioners are aggrieved by the Decision to impose fines and penalties upon the
11
Petitioners without substantial evidence in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
12
44. Accordingly, Petitioners petition this Court for Judicial review of the record on which
13

14 the Department’s Decision was based, including but not limited to:

15 a. The Decision was in violation of constitutional, statutory, and municipal code

16 provisions.
17
b. The Decision was in excess of the statutory and code authority of the Respondents.
18
c. The Decision was made upon unlawful procedure.
19
d. The Decision was affected by errors of law.
20

21 e. The Decision was clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial

22 evidence on the whole record.

23 f. The Decision was arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by a abuse of discretion.

24 g. The Decision is void ab initio for non-compliance with the notice requirements in the
25
municipal code and other state laws.
26
h. The Decision should be reversed, set aside, or remanded for all of the above reasons
27
and any others that this Court may deem appropriate.
28
6
45. As the action of the Department necessitated that Petitioners hire counsel and incur fees
1

2 and costs to bring this action, Petitioners are also entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

3 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Petition for Writ of Mandamus)
4
46. Petitioners repeat and reallege all prior paragraphs as fully set forth herein.
5

6 47. A Writ of Mandamus will lie to compel the performance of an act which the requires

7 as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to control arbitrary and capricious exercise of

8 discretion.
9
48. A Writ is appropriate as the Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at
10
law, other than to petition this Court.
11
49. When a governmental body fails to perform an act that “that the law requires” or acts
12
in an arbitrary or capricious manner, a writ of mandamus shall issue to correct the action. Nev. Rev.
13

14 Stat. § 34.160.

15 50. The Respondents failed to perform various acts that the law requires including
16 arbitrarily and capriciously imposing fines and penalties upon Petitioners.
17
51. Respondents acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the imposition of fines and penalties
18
upon Petitioners because, inter alia:
19
a. The Respondents failed to follow the required notice procedure for taking action to
20

21 abate nuisances on private property.

22 b. The Respondents Decision was based on inadmissible and unreliable evidence.

23 c. The evidence that Respondents base their decision upon was not provided to Petitioners
24 before the Hearing in violation of Petitioners’ due process rights.
25
d. The Respondents imposed fines and penalties upon Petitioners based on the influence
26
of other parties with ulterior and improper motives.
27
e. The Respondents acted in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.
28
7
f. The Respondents acted in excess of the statutory authority of the Department.
1

2 g. The Respondents completely disregarded evidence which a “reasonable mind” would

3 “accept as adequate to support” a contrary finding.

4 52. Respondents’ violations of their duties were arbitrary and capricious actions that
5 compel this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to vacate the Decision.
6
53. As a result of Respondents’ unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious actions, Petitioners have
7
been forced to retain legal counsel to prosecute this action and is therefore also entitled to its damages,
8
costs in this action, and an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to NRS 34.270.
9

10 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Petition for Writ of Certiorari)
11
54. Petitioners repeat and reallege all prior paragraphs as fully set forth herein.
12
55. A Writ of Certiorari will lie when an inferior tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and
13

14 no means of appeal exists.

15 56. A Writ of Certiorari is appropriate as the Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and
16 adequate remedy at law, other than to petition this Court.
17
57. The Respondents, including the Designee, exceeded their jurisdiction and by their
18
actions left the Petitioners without the ability to appeal and with no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
19
at law.
20

21 58. Respondents acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the imposition of fines and penalties

22 upon Petitioners because, inter alia:

23 a. The Respondents failed to follow the required notice procedure for taking action to
24 abate nuisances on private property.
25
b. The Respondents Decision was based on inadmissible and unreliable evidence.
26
c. The evidence that Respondents base their decision upon was not provided to Petitioners
27
before the Hearing in violation of Petitioners’ due process rights.
28
8
d. The Respondents imposed fines and penalties upon Petitioners based on the influence
1

2 of other parties with ulterior and improper motives.

3 e. The Respondents acted in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.

4 f. The Respondents acted in excess of the statutory authority of the Department.

5 g. The Respondents completely disregarded evidence which a “reasonable mind” would
6
“accept as adequate to support” a contrary finding.
7
59. Respondents’ violations of their duties were arbitrary and capricious actions that
8
compel this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari directing the Respondents to vacate the Decision.
9

10 60. As a result of Respondents’ unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious actions, Petitioners have

11 been forced to retain legal counsel to prosecute this action and is therefore also entitled to its damages,

12 costs in this action, and an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to NRS 34.270.
13
///
14
///
15
///
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
9
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1

2 WHEREFORE, the Petitioners pray for the following relief:

3 1. For the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to vacate the

4 Decision;
5 2. For the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari directing the Respondents to vacate the
6
Decision;
7
3. For judicial review of the record and history on which the fines and penalties were
8
based;
9

10 4. For attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and

11 5. For all other remedies and relief that this Court deems appropriate.

12 Dated this 11th day of December, 2019.

13
FLANGAS & BARNABI, LLC
14
/s/ Benjamin La Luzerne, Esq.
15 BENJAMIN LA LUZERNE
NV Bar #12801
16 Nevada Bar No.: 12801
375 E. Warm Springs Rd. #104
17 Las Vegas, Nevada 89109
Attorney for Petitioners
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
10
EXHIBIT 1
Page 1 of 1

Hearing decision El Cid/MI

Emily Wetzstein <[email protected]>
Mon 11/18/2019 7:33 AM
To: Ben La Luzerne <[email protected]>

1 attachments (1 MB)
195118 195119 195540 Abatement Hearing and Lien Approval Decision.pdf;

Attached is Mr Boyer’s signed hearing decision for the El Cid and MI properties.

Emily Wetzstein
Administrative Support Assistant
Department of Planning | Code Enforcement Division
(702) 229-6615 phone | (702)382-4341 fax
333 N Rancho Dr. Las Vegas, NV 89106

lasvegasnevada.gov
Code Enforcement

Your opinion is important! Click here to take a short survey.

This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that
is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, by forwarding this to sender and
destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you.

https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkADRhOGY1N2E4LTY1Y2QtNGQzOC1hMmM3... 12/11/2019
EXHIBIT 2
From: Laus Investment Group <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 11:20 PM
To: Emily Wetzstein <[email protected]>; Vicki Ozuna
<[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Perrigo <[email protected]>; Kennan Lau <[email protected]>;
[email protected]
Subject: Re: Notice of Code Enforcement hearing - invoice # 195118HN-90209

Hi Emily & Vicki,

We have three general contractors in my family, my late father & my two brothers, I am very familiar &
fully awarded the operation & the standard contractor's practice, normally markup & profit are within 15 to
20% is considered reasonable & fair. Apparently some will get away in billing sky high price for City job
and that's the reason why I have originally asked to communicate & asked to bill us direct from the
contractor, I would've gotten much lower price and I am not understanding why this request was denied.

After reviewing the attached invoice, we are totally shocked & disagreed. It was overly exaggerated &
totally incorrect from the fact, please see our disputing items and the areas of description of the board-up
job as follow; (will provide pictures upon request)

1. Front Building - 1st floor, used 16 pcs boarded the entire front incl. 2 windows (all size 58 x 68)

2. Building facing Bridger St. - 1st floor, boarded 6 windows & 6 windows on 2nd floor total 24 pcs.

3. Back of the building (alleyway) - 1st floor, used 10 pcs for the back area & entrance way. 2nd floor
used total 6 pcs. for the two bigger windows.

4. Building facing parking lot - 1st floor, boarded 6 windows & 6 windows on 2nd floor total 24 pcs.

5. We calculated & including all windows (size 58 x 68 - 2 pcs each), with two bigger windows 2nd
floor facing the alley (6 pcs) and covered front building & back area with generous allowance, the
maximum plywood used would be 80 pcs. We are unable to account for the additional 58 pcs at
the job site, which the statement was mistakenly billed 138 sheets for this building.

6. Every day price from Home Depot or Lowes for 3/4" plywood are between $33 to $35 per piece, for
contractor's discount, they would have paid less, it is outrageous & unconscionable to charge
customer $105 per piece which exceed 300%. Fair charges for each plywood would be $40 ($34 x 80
= $3,200)

7. It's impossible have used the amount of screws & bolts costed $400 for the Job described above. $150
is a very generous amount.

8. The maximum height to the 2nd floor is about 22' to 25' feet, they could easily work on the 30' boom lift
instead a 60' boom lift. We checked with Ahern Rentals, the two days rental fee/delivered/pick
up/fuel would be approximately $925 for 30' lift & about $1,300 for 60', as mentioned the 30' would
work perfectly. No justification on the $2,000 charge.

9. The contractor you hired bet my guy (who was instructed by us to do the job) by 30 min. started the
work in the morning of 12/18, was not working in the evening or middle of the night, no grounds for
emergency charge.
10. Workers all left after finished the job (16 hours), so the extra 8 hours supervision was incorrect ($448
+ $640).

We respectfully disagree with the charges & wish to dispute at the hearing date, if unable resolve
early. However, base on our fair evaluation, we like to propose a reasonable offer of $6,436
which includes 20% for both markup & profit ($3,200+$150+ $925+$448 +$640 = $5,363+$1,073-20%
profit) to the contractor and since we never got a break down on the admin. fee, we are offering
$1,402.35 (50%) for the total of $7,838.35. Please advise at your earliest & thanks for your assistance in
this matter.

Best regards,

Sophie Lau
EXHIBIT 3
LF FLANGAS LAW FIRM, LTD.
LEO P. FLANGAS, ESQ.

September 17, 2019

VIA EMAIL: [email protected]

City of Las Vegas

Department of Planning
Code Enforcement Division
Attn: Vicki Ozuna, Code Enforcement Section Manager
333 N. Rancho Dr.
Las Vegas, NV 89106

Re: September 25, 2019 Hearing – Good Earth Enterprises, LIG Land
Development, Sophie and Jeffrey Lau
Case Nos. CE-195540; CE-195118; CE-195119

Dear Ms. Ozuna,

As we discussed, this firm will be representing Mr. and Mrs. Lau and their respective
businesses for the purposes of this administrative hearing regarding code violations at the real
properties located between S. 6th St. and S. 7th St. and E. Carson Ave. and E. Bridger Ave (the
“Properties”).

At this time, we have received the file from the client’s former attorney, but it appears that
we have not received the records that he requested from your office. Therefore, as we discussed,
please send over the following documents:

1. Receipts from CGI to justify the cost of installing plywood at 233 S. 6th Street (“El
Cid”). We have the invoice, but not the backup.
2. Any documentation evidencing the determination that the El Cid abatement was an
“emergency.”
3. Any and all outstanding invoices related to the Properties owned by the Laus and/or
their companies.
4. Any and all outstanding liens related to the Properties owned by the Laus and/or their
companies.
5. The entire file you have regarding this case.

Sincerely,

__________________________
Ben La Luzerne, Esq.

600 South Third Street Las Vegas Nevada 89101  Office (702) 384-1990  Fax (702) 384-1009
EXHIBIT 4
Page 1 of 1

Re: City of Las Vegas Code Enforcement Cases 195119, 195118 and 195540
Ben La Luzerne
Tue 10/15/2019 2:54 PM
To: Leo P.. Flangas <[email protected]>
Mr. Boyer,

Ms. Ozuna forwarded me the email that was sent to an invalid email address on September
26. We disagree with your assertion that a business entity must be registered in a state to
appear to defend itself in a proceeding. Specifically NRS 80.015(1)(a) and (i) state ,
respectively, that defending or settling any proceeding; and owning real or personal property
does not constitute doing business in this State.

Also, such a requirement would lead to the nonsensical position that a city government can
"take" property without due process, as long as it is owned by a foreign business entity.

We await your holding on the matters noted above.

Thank you.

Ben

From: john boyer <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 9:14 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Vicki Ozuna
<[email protected]>
Subject: City of Las Vegas Code Enforcement Cases 195119, 195118 and 195540

EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside the organization, do

not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. La Luzerne and Flangas:

My research indicates that Good Earth Enterprises, Inc. had its' charter revoked in Nevada in 1984 and
that LIG Land Developments, LLC has never been registered in the State of Nevada at the Secretary of
State. Under Nevada law they cannot do business in the State of Nevada.
This would include appearing to contest the City of Las Vegas proceedings. Please let me know by
the end of Friday if there is an error and the entities are compliant. John Boyer, City of Las Vegas
Council Designee.

https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkADRhOGY1N2E4LTY1Y2QtNGQzOC1hMmM3... 12/11/2019