LETTER & DOCUMENTATION FROM THE OWNERS

Here we have for you the letter and documents the owners hand delivered to state their case for their obnoxious actions. BTW -- Letters were only delivered to the tenants on the affected side of the building.

FYI: We have removed the name of the tenant on this letter to keep him off the record at this time.

Regarding the injunction, the document did not scan well and I've included all the pertinent text of judgement. Be assured that all the information is there and accurate as we received it.



Here's the Letter:

VIA HAND DELIVERY

JOE M. AGAPAY, JR., APC
Attorneys at Law
10801 National Boulevard, Suite 400
Los Angeles, California 90064-4184
Telephone (310) 470-1700
Fax (310) 470-2602 Joe M. Agapay, Jr.

E-mail: jma@agapay.com

January 21, 2009

10801 National Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90064

Re: Exterior Wall Signage Dear Tenants:

National Investment Company (NIC), the owner and Lessor of 10801 National Blvd., has engaged my office to address concerns it has become aware of relating to the exterior wall signs it has contracted to have installed on the office building in which you are a tenant.

There are base issues and factual misunderstanding that need to be immediately clarified:

1. The signs have been installed pursuant to the express provisions of an August 20, 2008 Federal Court Judgment and Permanent Injunction. It is my understanding copies of this judgment have already been circulated to the building tenants by NIC, but for your ease of reference, please find an additional copy of the Judgment enclosed with this letter. You will see that at line 8, page 3 (item no. 16) of the Judgment the NIC building at 10801 National Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064, is expressly included as a location to which the protective provisions of the Judgment apply.

2. The installing vendor of the signs advises that assertions that the sign fabric constitutes a flammable fire hazard are unwarranted. The vendor advises that the fabric used was tested and approved by the California State Fire Marshal as meeting the minimum requirements of flame resistance under applicable California regulations. Enclosed please find a copy of the State Fire Marshall's approval, with an expiration date of June 30, 2009, provided to us by the vendor of the signs.

3. Various suggestions have been made about the withholding of rent in protest of installation of the signs. For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis to conclude the signs are "illegal", which some have suggested would be the grounds for withholding of rent. Apparently it has also been suggested that installation of the signs interferes with tenant use or enjoyment of the rented space, and this constitutes grounds for the withholding of rent. In California there is both statutory and case law authority for a residential tenant to withhold rent if the landlord breaches the implied covenant of habitability (through wrongful act or negligence allows an uninhabitable condition to interfere with the residential tenant's occupancy of the rental property).

NO SUCH STATUTORY OR CASE LAW AUTHORITY exists in California that would permit a commercial tenant to withhold rent because of a claim of uninhabitable conditions.

Therefore, those who are seeking to bring about a "tenant-revolt" by the withholding of rent are not only ill advised, but are offering suggestions that could lead to tenants being subjected to eviction proceedings for failure to timely pay rent.

However, NIC does not seek to have this situation escalate into a legal battle. It is concerned about the occupancy and use by the tenants of their rental spaces and wishes to work with them in making appropriate adjustments, on a case-by-case basis.

The sign on the north wall of the building is scheduled to be removed at the end of this month. In subsequent months, other similar signs will be installed. To the extend the existence of these signs interfere, impede or otherwise adversely impact the business operations conducted at your respective rental spaces, MC is prepared to negotiate a rebate program that would take into consideration the particulars of each of the tenants so impacted.

Please contact me, or have your attorney contact me, as soon as it is convenience so we may put in place a program that will appropriately address your concerns and continued occupancy.

Sincerely yours, Best regards,

Joe M. Agapay, Jr.

JMA:nb

encl.

cc: National Investment Company

=========================

Here's the Judgment and Injunction:

Case 2:07-cv-00238-ABC-JWJ Document 155 Filed 08/20/2008

JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

JS - 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WORLD WIDE RUSH, LLC, a

CASE NO. CV 07-238 ABC (jWJx) Pennsylvania corporation, and )

INSITE OUTDOOR WORKS LA, LLC, a) Delaware limited liabilitycompany,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

A California municipal

corporation and DOE 1 through

DOE 10, inclusive

Defendant.

On August 19, 2008, the Court granted Plaintiff World. Wide Rush, LLC and incite Outdoor Works LA, LLC's (Plaintiffs'") Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety. Plaintiffs have advised the Court that, upon issuance of a permanent injunction, Plaintiffs will waive their claim for damages and all non-first-amendment claims (subject to reinstatement should the preliminary injunction be reversed on appeal), and this injunction will constitute the Final Judgment in this action. After considering the evidence presented and the arguments of the parties, the Court: rules as follows:

1) Sections 14.4.4(B)(9) and 14.4.4(B)(11) of the Sign Ordinance violate the First Amendment because the exceptions in those provisions for off-site and supergraphic signs permitted pursuant to special plans, supplemental use districts, and development agreements vest unfettered discretion in City officials.

2) The exceptions in sections 14.4.4(B)(9) and 14.4.4(3)(11) for off-site and supergraphic signs permitted pursuant to special plans, supplemental use districts, and development agreements are not severable.

3) The restriction in section 14.4.6 on signs within 2,000 feet of a freeway violates the First Amendment because it does not directly advance the City's asserted interests underlying the restriction and is not narrowly tailored to achieve those interests; therefore, section 14.4.6 is an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech under

Central Hudson.

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

2. The City, its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all those acting in concert or participating with them, are hereby permanently enjoined from taking the following actions 'against supergraphic signs owned and operated by Plaintiffs or those in contractual privity with them at the 21 sites specified in the modified preliminary injunction:

a. Enforcing section 14.4.4(3)(9) of the sign ordinance;

b. Enforcing section 14.4.4(3)(11) of the sign ordinance;

c. Enforcing section 14.4.6 of the sign ordinance. The sites subject to this injunction are as follows:

1. 3280 Cahuenga Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90068
2. 6200 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90048
3. 1606 Cotner Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90025
4. 165 N. La Brea Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90036
5. 5150 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90036
6. 10680 W. Pico Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064
7. 1357 Highland Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90038
8. 1551 N. La Brea Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90046
9. 8200 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90211
10. 8455 Beverly Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90048
11. 1816, 1818, 1819 Oak St., Los Angeles, CA 90015
12. 1640 Marengo St., Los Angeles, CA 90033
13. 1651 S. Central Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90034
14. 8801 W. Pico Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90035
15. 11022 Santa Monica Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90025
16. 10801 National Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064
17. 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90034
18. 10924 Le Conte ,Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90024
19. 300 S. Robertson Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90034
20. 6081 Center Dr., Los Angeles, CA 90045
21. 7901 Melrose Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90046

This injunction prohibits the City both from interfering with Plaintiffs' maintenance of their off-site signs and supergraphic signs and from issuing citations to Plaintiffs or those with whom they contract based on the above-cited code sections or based on the inability of Plaintiffs to obtain permits for their off-site signs and supergraphic signs because of the City's enforcement of the above‑ cited code sections. The City may inspect and verify Plaintiffs' signs to ensure that they have been constructed according to applicable code provisions to ensure the safe construction of signs.

The Court further ORDERS that there being no claims left to litigate in this action, that this judgment is the final judgment in

this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. .

DATED: August 20, 2008

AUDREY B. COLLINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

===========================================

Here's another document issued by the office of the state fire marshal:

STATE FIRE MARSHAL

.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY and FIRE PROTECTION
OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL

REGISTERED FLAME RESISTANT PRODUCT

Product: Registration No.

VALMEX PRINT FRONTLIT II FR F-37405

Product marketed By:

MEHLER TEXNOLOGIES, INC. 220 B CABELL STREET

MARTINSVILLE, VA 24112

This product meets the minimum requirements of flame resistance established by the California State Fire Marshal for products identified in Section 13115, California Health and Safety Code.

The scope of the approved use of this product is provided in the current edition of the CALIFORNIA APPROVED LIST OF FLAME RETARDANT CHEMICALS AND FABRICS, GENERAL AND LIMITED APPLICATIONS CONCERNS published by the California State Fire Marshal.

	Expire: 06/30/2009

Deputy State Fire Marshal

=============================

Here's another document...

Intertek giving you the technical poop -- bla bla bla

Intertek

ETL SEMKO

ASTM D635-03

Rate of Burning and/or Extent and Time of Burning of Plastics in a
Horizontal Position

Client: Clear Focus Imaging 60 Maxwell Court

Santa Rosa, CA 95401

Report No.: 3089806SAT-001 Received Date: January 27, 2006

est Date: February 1, 2006

Report Date: February 6, 2006 Specimen ID: 3-7078 Punched

Sample Description

7 mil white/black one-way window graphic product

Sample Dimensions: 125mm x 13mm x 0.18mm Sample Preparation: Tested as received.

Sample Conditioning: 73±5°F and 50±5% R.H.

Environmental Conditions 69°F and 61% r.h.

This Test Witnessed by: n/a

*This standard should be used to measure and describe the properties of materials. products, or assemblies in response to heat and flame under controlled laboratory conditions and should not be used to describe or appraise the fire hazard or fire risk of materials, products, or assemblies under actual fire conditions. However, results of this test may be used as elements of a fire risk assessment which takes into account all of the factors which are pertinent to an assessment of the fire hazard of a particular end use."

Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc.
16015 Shady falls Road

Elmendorf, Texas 78112

Telephone: 210-635-8100 Fax: 210-635-8101 www.intertek-etlsemko.com

Project No. 3089806SAT-001 February 6. 2006 Page 2 of 3

Category Designation

The behavior of specimens shall be classified HE (HB = horizontal burning) if,

a.) There is no visible signs of combustion after the source is removed, or b.) The flame front does not pass the 25 mm reference mark, or c.) The flame front passes the 25 mm reference mark but does not reach the 100 mm reference mark, or d.) The flame front reaches the 100 mm reference mark and the linear burning rate does not exceed 40 mm/min for specimens having a thickness between 3 and 13 mm or 75 mm/min for specimens having a thickness less than 3 mm.

Summary of Test Method

A bar of the material to be tested is supported horizontally at one end. The free end is exposed to a specified methane gas flame for 30s. Elapsed time (t) and Burned length

(L) are measured and reported if the specimen burns between 25mm and 100mm. An average burning rate is reported for a material if it burns to the 100-mm mark from the ignited end.

TEST RESULTS

Specimen	Did Flame Reach 25mm (Y/N)	Did Flame Reach 100mm (Y/N) ,	Elapsed Time* (sec)	Burned Length* (mm)
1	No	No	N/A	N/A
2	No	No	N/A	N/A
3	No	No	N/A	NIA
4	No	No	N/A	N/A
5	No	No	N/A	N/A
6	No	No	N/A	N/A
7	No	No	N/A	N/A
8	No	No	N/A	N/A
9	No	No	N/A	N/A
Average			N/A	N/A

• This data is not available because the flame did not reach the 25mm reference mark

Intertek etl semko

Project No 3089806SAT-001 February 6. 2006 Page 3 of 3

Conclusion:

This specimen meets the HB classification requirements.

This report is for the exclusive use of intertek's Client and is provided pursuant to the agreement between1 lntertek and Its Client. lntertek's responsibility and liability are limited to the terms and conditions of the agreement lntertek assumes no liability to any party, other than to the Client In accordance with the agreement, for any loss, expense or damage occasioned by the use of this report Only the Client is authorized to copy or distribute this report and then only In its entirety. Any use of the lntertek name or one of its marks for the sale or advertisement of the tasted material, product or service must first be approved in writing by lntertek. The observations and test results in this report are relevant only to the sample tested. This report by itself does not Imply that the material, product, or service is or has ever been under an lntertek certification program.

This report consists of three pages.

	February 6, 2006
Servando Romo Project Manager

Reviewed and approved:

	February 6, 2006
C. Anthony Penaloza Flammability Testing Team Leader

Intertek etl semko