Yasny v. County of Sacramento CA3, C075948

Plaintiff Ron Yasny has been under a 1996 permanent injunction prohibiting storage of junk, rubbish, derelict vehicles, and certain equipment on his residential property in Sacramento County.
In 2012 Code Enforcement inspected Yasny’s property and found various deteriorated materials (rusty metal, scrap wood, dismantled vehicle parts, containers, tarped building supplies, alleged animal carcasses). Photographs were admitted at an administrative hearing.
A hearing officer issued an abatement order requiring removal or storage of enumerated items in a fully enclosed structure; some finished wood stacks and certain equipment were excluded.
Yasny filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate and a complaint for declaratory relief in superior court; the trial court denied the writ, rejected declaratory relief and declined to modify the 1996 injunction.
On appeal Yasny raised numerous claims (e.g., insufficiency of evidence, constitutional challenges, res judicata/laches/estoppel, failure to consider post-hearing evidence, conflict with building code exemptions), but the appellate court found most claims forfeited or not preserved and affirmed the denial of the writ and dismissal of the complaint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of review for administrative mandate	Yasny: order implicates a fundamental vested right so independent judgment review (de novo) required	County: no fundamental right implicated; substantial evidence standard applies	Court: no fundamental vested right affected; apply substantial evidence standard
Sufficiency of evidence supporting abatement	Yasny: items were usable construction materials, not "junk/rubbish" under zoning code	County: inspector testimony and photographs show dilapidation and junk/rubbish	Held: substantial evidence (inspection testimony + photos) supports abatement order
Consideration of evidence submitted after administrative hearing	Yasny: hearing officer improperly refused to consider late evidence	County: trial court cannot consider extra-record evidence absent showing of diligence or improper exclusion	Held: Yasny failed to show reasonable diligence; extra evidence not considered; issue forfeited below
Request to modify/dissolve 1996 permanent injunction	Yasny: injunction should be modified or dissolved (procedural and substantive grounds asserted)	County: Yasny failed to file the notice/motion under Civil Code §3424 and did not present required showing	Held: trial court correctly denied relief for failure to comply with §3424 and to show changed circumstances

Benetatos v. City of Los Angeles, 235 Cal.App.4th 1270 (explains §1094.5 standards and application of substantial evidence vs. independent judgment)
JKH Enterprises, Inc. v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 142 Cal.App.4th 1046 (discusses when fundamental vested rights trigger independent review)
Fukuda v. City of Angels, 20 Cal.4th 805 (describes standards for administrative mandamus review)
Hardesty v. Sacramento Metro. Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 202 Cal.App.4th 404 (applies substantial evidence review to agency abatement decisions)
Antelope Valley Press v. Poizner, 162 Cal.App.4th 839 (explains court will not reweigh evidence on substantial evidence review)
Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. City of Selma, 204 Cal.App.4th 187 (single witness testimony can constitute substantial evidence)
Salazar v. Eastin, 9 Cal.4th 836 (dissolution/modification of injunction rests in trial court’s discretion)