We demand an immediate independent investigation into the City of Lawndale’s Municipal Services Department and City Attorney’s Office for wrongful code enforcement prosecutions, misuse of taxpayer funds, and potential financial conflicts of interest. All quoted allegations and factual assertions herein are drawn from publicly filed court documents in People of the State of California ex rel. Tiffany J. Israel, City Attorney for the City of Lawndale, and City of Lawndale v. LA Investment LLC, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20TRCV00065, including sworn declarations, trial briefs, and motions filed by counsel of record.

Citizens and property owners in Lawndale are being subjected to a bureaucratic nightmare of aggressive and allegedly meritless code enforcement litigation. In the above-referenced case, Defendants alleged that the City cited building and zoning violations “that never existed” on the property and refused to reconsider its position despite repeated objections (Defs.’ Mem. P. & A. in Supp. Mot. for Sanctions at 2:9–15 (LASC No. 20TRCV00065)). The City nevertheless pursued litigation for nearly six years.

Defendants further alleged that the City expended more than $280,000 in public funds to prosecute this case, a significant expenditure for a small municipal budget (Defs.’ Mot. for Sanctions at 2:16–19 (LASC No. 20TRCV00065)). Defendants sought court-ordered sanctions totaling $595,498.15 in attorney fees and interest, alleging that the City’s litigation conduct was frivolous and pursued in bad faith (Defs.’ Mot. for Sanctions at 2:25–28 (LASC No. 20TRCV00065)).

According to Defendants’ trial brief, the City alleged violations that Defendants contend did not exist, including outdoor laundry hookups that were installed pursuant to plumbing permits issued in 1959 (Defs.’ Trial Br. at 9:13–18 (LASC No. 20TRCV00065)). Defendants also alleged that the City improperly classified decorative gravel as “flatwork,” despite the City’s designated Person Most Knowledgeable admitting under deposition that gravel is not flatwork (Defs.’ Mot. for Sanctions at 3:2–8 (LASC No. 20TRCV00065)). Court filings further allege that the City initiated litigation without adequate investigation and did not have a qualified building inspector inspect the property until years after the case was filed (Defs.’ Mot. for Sanctions at 5:5–12 (LASC No. 20TRCV00065)).

Defendants additionally alleged serious financial conflicts of interest, asserting that appointed City Attorneys William Wynder of Aleshire & Wynder, LLP and Greg Murphy of Burke, Williams & Sorenson, LLP retained their own law firms as litigation counsel in the case, creating a direct financial conflict of interest and misuse of public funds (Defs.’ Mot. for Sanctions at 3:22–28 (LASC No. 20TRCV00065)). Defendants further alleged that this arrangement violated the California Political Reform Act and compromised the impartiality of legal advice provided to the City Council.

We therefore call for an immediate independent investigation by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Public Integrity Division into the City of Lawndale’s Municipal Services Department and City Attorney’s Office. We demand a comprehensive audit of all building code prosecutions to identify cases where state-law permitting exemptions were ignored, full accountability for the expenditure of public funds on allegedly meritless litigation, and immediate correction of City guidance and enforcement policies to ensure strict compliance with California state law.

We also demand reform of the City of Lawndale’s Residential Property Report policy, which mandates physical inspections of garages and accessory structures as a condition of sale. This policy effectively converts routine real estate transactions into proactive code enforcement sweeps, burdens homeowners, and may raise constitutional privacy and due process concerns. Reform is essential to protecting property rights, preserving property values, and ensuring municipal services serve residents rather than functioning as a revenue-generating enforcement apparatus.

Verification of legal spending figures, alleged violations, investigative failures, and conflict-of-interest allegations is supported by publicly filed court documents in People v. LA Investment LLC, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20TRCV00065, including Defendants’ Trial Brief (May 13, 2025), Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Sanctions (Mar. 19, 2026), and sworn declarations filed in the case.

AND 

Reform the Lawndale Residential Property Report Policy
Lawndale’s Residential Property Report (RPR) has become an unnecessary hurdle that unfairly burdens homeowners and real estate agents. By mandating physical inspections of garages and accessory buildings as a condition of sale, the city effectively turns a standard real estate transaction into a proactive code enforcement sweep. This policy not only risks violating constitutional privacy rights through warrantless searches but also creates a "bureaucratic nightmare" where any minor, unrelated observation can trigger a wrongful prosecution. Reforming this policy is essential to protecting our property values, respecting homeowner privacy, and ensuring that our municipal services focus on community support rather than predatory litigation.
 
Verification-Status Notes
Legal Spending: Figures ($280,000 vs. $13,299.69 and $595,498.15) are supported by CPRA requests or court exhibits as filed by: KLINEDINST PC, 501 West Broadway, Suite 1100, San Diego, CA 92101.

Pattern of Enforcement: The claim of a standard tactic of "over the top" complaints is supported by similar litigation patterns in Lawndale v. Fernandez, et al. (LASC Case No. 20TRCV00349) and Lawndale v. Prieto Lopez, et al. (LASC Case No. 19TRCV01121) . 

Case Name: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. TIFFANY J. ISRAEL, City Attorney for the City of Lawndale, and CITY OF LAWNDALE, a municipal corporation, v. LA Investments LLC (Case No. 20TRCV00065).

Authority: Los Angeles County Code Tit. 26, Ch. 1, §106.3 governs exemptions; Cal. Penal Code § 424 and Gov. Code § 87100 govern the misuse of funds and conflicts of interest.

Residential Property Report City Code -

Prior to concluding an agreement for sale or exchange of any residential building, unless excluded by Section 8.80.080, the owner or his or her authorized representative shall have the city inspect all garages on the property and prepare a residential property report identifying whether any off-street parking space which should be used for vehicle parking but is not available for such use.
Owners and sellers may also request that the residential property inspection and report include observable items outside of the garage that fail to comply with the city's codes, rules and ordinances. If an inspection beyond the garage is requested, the inspection necessary to prepare such report shall be based upon observations from the public right-of-way, such that the report is only intended to identify municipal code violations that are observable from the public right-of-way. The report shall specifically identify any off-street parking space which should be used for vehicle parking but is not available for such use. Said report shall be valid for the purposes of this chapter for a period not to exceed six months from date of issue and is not intended to provide an exhaustive list of all code violations upon the property.
(Ord. 902-02 § 1; Ord. 997-07 § 3; Ord. 1164-19 § 1)
 § 8.80.040Application. 
Upon application of the owner or his or her authorized agent and payment of a fee in an amount established by resolution of the city council, the community development department shall: (1) review pertinent city records; (2) cause an on-site inspection of the property by the municipal services department as described in Section 8.80.050; and (3) prepare and deliver the residential property report to the applicant.
(Ord. 902-02 § 1; Ord. 997-07 § 4)
 § 8.80.050Inspection. 
Upon receipt of an application which complies with Section 8.80.040, the municipal services department shall conduct a physical inspection of the subject property for the purpose of observing the property's compliance with the municipal code and determining the availability of the required off-street parking. The inspection shall be limited to exterior areas of the residential unit(s) and the interior areas of garages and/or accessory buildings such as detached garages, laundry rooms and storage sheds. If the municipal services department has reasonable cause to believe that a dwelling unit has been illegally subdivided, an interior inspection of such building may be conducted.
(Ord. 902-02 § 1; Ord. 997-07 § 5)
 § 8.80.060Citation. 
Any observed unlawful condition relating to the use and maintenance of the subject property should be identified in the report, and formal enforcement procedures may be prosecuted as provided by law.
(Ord. 902-02 § 1; Ord. 997-07 § 6)
 § 8.80.070Delivery of report. 
A residential property report prepared pursuant to Section 8.80.030 shall be delivered by the owner or the authorized designated representative of the owner to the buyer or transferee of the residential building prior to the transfer of title to the property. The buyer or transferee shall execute a receipt therefor as furnished by the city, and said receipt shall be delivered to the department of community development as evidence of compliance with the provision of this chapter.
(Ord. 902-02 § 1; Ord. 997-07 § 7)

8.80.080Exclusions. 
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to:
A. Condominiums of ten units or more where the required parking is supplied completely by way of a common parking facility.
 B. The first sale of a residential building which has never been occupied.
 C. Transfers which are required to be preceded by the furnishing to a prospective transferee of a copy of a public report pursuant to Section 11018.1 of the Business and Professions Code.
 D. Transfers pursuant to court order, including, but not limited to, transfers ordered by a probate curt in administration of an estate, transfers pursuant to a writ of execution, transfers by a trustee in bankruptcy or transfers resulting from a decree for specific performance.
 E. Transfers to a mortgagee by a mortgagor in default, transfers to a beneficiary of a deed of trust by a trustor in default, transfers by any foreclosure sale after default, transfers by any foreclosure sale under default in an obligation secured by a mortgage, or transfers by sale under a power of sale after a default in an obligation secured by a deed of trust or secured by any other instrument containing a power of sale.
 F. Transfer by a fiduciary in the course of administration of guardianship, conservatorship, or trust.
 G. Transfers from one co-owner to one or more co-owners.
 H. Transfers made to a spouse, or to person or persons in the lineal, line or consanguinity of one or more of the transferors.
 I. Transfers between spouses resulting from a decree of dissolution of a marriage or a decree of legal separation or from a property settlement agreement incidental to such decrees.
 J. Transfers by the state controller in the course of administering the Unclaimed Property Law (Chapter 7 [commencing with Section 1500] of Title 10, Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
 K. The sale of a mobile home in a mobile home park which sale does not include the sale of land.
 L. Transfers in which the city or the agency is a party to the transaction.
 M. Transfers to a governmental entity.
 (Ord. 902-02 § 1; Ord. 997-07 § 8)
 § 8.80.090Penalties. 
A. Anyone in violation of Section 8.80.030 or 8.80.070 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided by the provisions of Chapter 1.08 of the Lawndale Municipal Code.
 B. No sale or exchange of residential property shall be invalidated solely because of the failure of any person to comply with any provision of this chapter.
 (Ord. 902-02 § 1; Ord. 997-07 § 9)

Disclaimer and Statement of Purpose

This petition is submitted in good faith as an exercise of the constitutional rights to free speech and to petition government for redress of grievances, as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2 of the California Constitution. It concerns matters of public interest, including municipal governance, code enforcement practices, public expenditures, and potential conflicts of interest by public officials.

All statements, summaries, and characterizations contained herein are based on publicly available sources, including court filings, deposition testimony, municipal codes, California Public Records Act (CPRA) disclosures, and other records believed to be accurate at the time of publication. Where interpretations, conclusions, or opinions are expressed, they are clearly intended as opinion, commentary, and advocacy—not as statements of adjudicated fact.

This petition does not assert or declare criminal guilt, civil liability, or ethical violations as established facts, nor does it purport to make factual findings reserved to courts, juries, prosecutors, or regulatory authorities. References to alleged misconduct, conflicts of interest, or improper practices are made solely for the purpose of requesting independent review and investigation by the appropriate authorities.

No statement herein is intended to be false, misleading, defamatory, or made with actual malice, nor is any statement made with reckless disregard for the truth. This petition expressly relies on the protections afforded to speech and petitioning activity concerning public issues and public officials under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute).

Nothing in this petition constitutes legal advice, nor is it intended to interfere with, influence, or prejudice any pending judicial or administrative proceeding. The inclusion of case names, dollar figures, statutes, or ordinances is for purposes of public discussion, transparency, and accountability only.

This petition is directed to government entities and oversight bodies and is not intended to harass, threaten, or target any individual. Readers and signatories are encouraged to independently review the cited public records and draw their own conclusions.