The trial court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s petition for administrative mandamus to challenge Oakley’s abatement order requiring destruction of the abandoned industrial building on plaintiff’s property. Oakley properly served notice of the abatement order by simultaneously posting the notice on the property and mailing it to plaintiff at his last known address. Oakley was not required to serve by mail first and post only after it received the mailed notice back undelivered. Because the notice was properly served and because plaintiff did not timely file an administrative appeal thereafter, plaintiff did not exhaust his available administrative remedy and was barred from suing in court to challenge the abatement order.
California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5 (Bruiniers, J.); October 25, 2018 (modified and published November 21, 2018); 29 Cal. App. 5th 348