Larchmont Bungalow Pre-Trial Hearing

August 30, 2012

Recap of the proceedings in the Criminal Courts Building in downtown Los Angeles:

The city’s criminal case against illegal restaurant Larchmont Bungalow was on the schedule of Division 40 this morning, but was referred by Judge David Herriford to Division 109 in order for Judge Kathleen A. Kennedy to hear two motions filed by Bungalow’s newest defense attorney, Mr. Alan Fenster. 

For those unfamiliar with this issue, Bungalow has been operating without the most basic city permit required of restaurants or any kind of food-service business. The last permit issued for that space (formerly an office building) was for food-retail and it was declared void on October 28, 2009. After several administrative appeals and hearings, that food-retail permit, which is in the same category as the one used by Starbucks and other coffee takeout places, was revoked for good in December 2009.

Three criminal charges were filed by the city in early 2010, among which involved the defendant’s violation of the terms of a document he had signed — he has stated that he could not have understood that document because of a blood disease he is afflicted with. (No word if Mr. Fenster will use that as a defense in the actual trial.) The criminal case was repeatedly held over as Bungalow asked for the civil court system to decide whether the revocation was proper. It had been understood that Bungalow would abide by the decision of the civil court; however, when the judge finally decided in December 2011 in favor of the city (stating that the revocation was in fact proper), the criminal case continued to be delayed by attorney changes on the part of Bungalow.

The latest maneuvering of Bungalow includes the subpoenaing of a sitting member of the city council and the filing of said two motions. Once those motions are heard on September 17th, a trial date may finally be set. What makes this case unusual is the length of time it has been taking to prosecute three misdemeanors and the continued normal operation of Bungalow, as though it were a completely legal restaurant. There is no record of any other food facility operating so flagrantly without a city permit for almost three years and with the open patronage of high-ranking government officials.

For more background on this community issue, you may search this site. We will add details and links to this entry soon. Thank you.