Questions/Recommendations for Owners of 10801

Although insignificant when it compares to the injustice served with the billboard issues of the building, several tenants have additional questions and recommendations to Frank Rahban and the owners of 10801.

Since the legal team for 10801 follows this blog closely, we suggest that you pass this information to the owners. If we get a response from Lois or Joe Agapay, we will post it. BTW -- It would be an honor to hear from Frank Rahban himself - That would be a treat! Our email is 10801takesigndown@gmail.com.

Questions from the tenants:

• When are the windows going to be washed? Comments made include filthy, dirty and disgusting. We know they have not been washed for over 3 years and Lois has informed us that they are supposed to be washed every year. What gives?
• How about the pigeon problem in the garage? It's not really the pigeons, it's what the pigeons leave behind as they do their business on the parked vehicles. Is there anything you intend to do about this problem?
  

Recommendations from the tenants:

• Modernize the building. The automatic doors for the lobby and the garage and the video survellance on each floor have been a good addition, but we suggest more can be done and in the long run will save you money. Several tenants have recommend key cards that could be used to access the building and the elevator. Most modern buildings have this -- how about something like this for 10801? This could also replace the guard that just usually sits around all day -- especially on Sunday.
• Access to the building on "holidays" and after hours. Many have complained that the building closes down for all major holidays. What if you don't celebrate Easter? Why not close the building for Passover? Also, some folks work on holidays or may just need to pick something up at the office. Why should the building be shut down? If someone is a tenant, shouldn't they have the right to access the building on a "holiday"? The same goes for after hours. Why does the building have to shut down? What if a legal team needs to work on a case through the night or something important needs to be picked up? These building rules are ridiculous and need to be changed. If there were key cards this problem could be handled easily.

7 LETTERS HELP EXPLAIN DR. ALLAN'S STORY

How can Frank Rahban and the owners of 10801 National kick a doctor out of his office -- a thriving practice he has maintained in the same building for over 16 years? Let's take a closer look so you can understand.

I've given you my suggestions and now you can be the judge. I've decided to reveal a series of legal letters that will help the public understand this injustice. There is unfinished business regarding this story and the truth needs to be told and the owners need to be exposed for their unscrupulous behavior. For the record -- I refuse to play the victim and am not looking for sympathy. The owners were not right to do such a thing, and with this post I can set the record straight and reprimand and expose the folks responsible for these actions.

MAIN TREATING ROOM AT SUITE 580 - Now Empty.

Retaliation is the only basis for this "eviction" (forced out) and furthermore, the wrong message was sent to the public and the tenants of 10801. The retaliation was in response to this very blog. See left side bar for more details.

Oh yes, we welcome any comments from NIC -- and we will gladly post them. We are looking for a formal apology along with reinstatement to have my office back. Right now Dr. Graff has two empty rooms on account of the owner's actions – and you know it’s not easy filling office space in this current economy.

Media outlets should contact our email address - 10801takesigndown@gmail.com -- We would greatly appreciate help in getting this story out and help direct traffic to this site.

Also you can contact my attorney Kevin P. Hall by clicking on his name. I've given him permission to speak with the media regarding this case.

Here are 7 letters with comments to help explain this unreal series of events. (A signed PDF is available for all of these letters on request)

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

Letter #1:

February 16, 2009; Agapay letter to Graff

Notice of Default

NOTICE OF DEFAULT And THIRTY-DAY NOTICE TO CURE
Via Hand Delivery

February 16, 2009

TO: ANDREW C. GRAFF, D.C.
10801 National Blvd. Suite 580

Los Angeles, California 90064


YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED within thirty (30) days after this notice is served upon you either to:

a. Cure the breach by you of Section 10 of the January 5, 2004 Lease you have with National Investment Company ("NIC") , as amended by First Addendum date May 1, 2008, for the premises, consisting of business accommodations, said premises are known and described as 10801 National Boulevard, Suite 580, Los Angeles, California 90064, of which you hold possession. Your breach consists of the unauthorized subleasing by you of all or a portion of the premises to David Allan, D.C.; or

b. To surrender and deliver up possession of said premises to NIC.; or

c. Remove your unauthorized subtenant and his property from the premises. If you fail to do so, legal proceedings will be commenced against you to recover possession of said premises with such other damages as may be allowed by law.

THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY DECLARES AND GIVES NOTICE that Section 10 of the aforesaid Lease has been breached in that David Allan has stated orally and in writing throughout the blog he commenced publishing and disseminating to the public on January 14, 2009, that David Allan is a subtenant in the premises. The consent or approval of such sub-tenant has never been applied for by you nor granted by NIC or any agent of NIC and David Allan is therefore an illegal subtenant. If you wish to cure this breach by seeking the consent of NIC, you must submit to NIC within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this notice, your written request for the right to sublease to David Allan with a description of the nature of the proposed subtenant's business to be conducted on the premises, a current balance sheet and profit an loss statement for and signed by David Allan together with the written consent and authorization of David Allan for NIC to obtain a credit report on him, and a copy of the proposed sublease terms under which your proposed subtenant would occupy the premises should NIC give its consent to such sublease.

Upon timely submission to NIC of your written request and the additional materials listed about, before commencing its review thereof, pursuant to Section 23 of the aforesaid Lease you will be required to pay NIC such reasonable fee as NIC establishes for reviewing or preparing documents and /or credit reports applicable thereto.

NIC is mindful of its contractual and statutory obligations to not unreasonably withhold approval of your proposed subtenant. Therefore in order to assist NIC in making a reasonable and thorough analysis of whether approval of your proposed subtenant should be granted, the greater the detail provided in his current financial statements, the more likely it will be that NIC will be able to make an informed and fair decision. Conversely if no or only sketchy financial information is provided it would be less likely that NIC will be in position to consent to your proposed subtenant as NIC, through no fault of its own, will not have been provided sufficient information to make an informed decision and would therefore have a reasonable basis for withholding its consent.

Should you fail to timely cure the breach of Section 10 of the Lease, NIC WILL DECLARE A FORFEITURE of the Lease under which you hold possession of said premises, and will proceed to commence legal action for recovery of possession of said premises and for all monies due and owing under the terms of Sections 23 and 26 of said Lease.

February 16, 2009

NATIONAL INVESTMENT COMPANY
By: JOE M. AGAPAY, JR., INC.
A Professional Corporation
10801 National Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90064
jma@agapay.com
Off 310-470-1700
FAX 310-470-2602

Comments: This letter shocked both Dr. Graff and myself and many others that have the same office sharing arrangement in the building. The biggest shock the fact that they were asking for my financial records. Mind you, I'm not even on the lease or responsible to pay the owners directly. Keep in mind that in two previous leases with the owners, I was never asked to supply them with my financial records. Now they want detailed records to prove I'm authorized? It was clear that the owners were not happy with my blog and wanted to seek retaliation and found a sly technical way to put the squeeze on Dr. Graff to force me out.

Since Dr. Graff did not want to deal with a lawsuit, we decided it would be best for me to move out and he requested a two week extension to make it easier on him so he could have more time to find another occupant. That brings us to the next letter.

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

Letter #2

March 12, 2009; Agapay letter to Graff

Continued Occupancy by Unauthorized Subtenant

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

E-mail: jma@agapay.com

March 12, 2009

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
10801 National Boulevard Suite 580
Los Angeles, California 90064

Re: Continued Occupancy by Unauthorized Subtenant

Dear Dr. Graff:

Please be advised that your March 9, 2009 memorandum to National Investment Company ("NIC") is not in compliance with the terms of your written lease of Suite 580 in general, nor does it constitute an authorized modification or satisfaction, partial or otherwise, of the NOTICE OF DEFAULT And THIRTY-DAY NOTICE TO CURE ("Notice") that was dated and served upon you on February 16, 2009.

Your rights and obligations concerning occupancy of Suite 580 are clearly set forth in the written lease and the application of those obligations to the unauthorized occupancy of your suite by David Allan is specifically addressed in the Notice.

You have recently made an oral request for an extension or delay of the 30-day time frame in which the Notice must be complied with in order to avoid institution of legal proceeding under the lease terms. There is no legal basis for such a request, and NIC is satisfied it has, under the Notice terms, given appropriate and adequate time for you to either cure or commence the process of curing your default relating to the unauthorized subtenancy of David Allan.

Your failure to timely cure your default under the lease will result in legal proceedings being instituted against you without further notice and at your further costs.

Sincerely,

Joe M. Agapay, Jr.
JMA:nb

cc: National Investment Company


Comments: This refusal not to give us a few more weeks was a pivotal point in this legal saga. I sought legal counsel and found an excellent attorney -- Kevin P. Hall. Dr. Graff sent a letter to the owners to give him permission to have Dr. Allan as a subtenant. That brings us to letter #3.

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

Letter #3

March 16, 2009; Graff letter to Agapay

RE: Notice of Default

Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
10801 National Blvd.
Suite 580
Los Angeles, CA 90064

March 16, 2009

BY HAND DELIVERY

Mr. Joe M. Agapay, Jr., APC
Attorney at Law
10801 National Blvd. Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90064

Re: Notice of Default

Dear Mr. Agapay:

In response to the notice of default that I received, I would like to address some points raised by the request that Dr. Allan leave the premises.

I do not believe that the office sharing arrangement that I have had with Dr. Allan, which the landlord and building representatives have known about for months, constitutes a sublease or breach of my lease. Furthermore, my relationship with Dr. Allan is similar to office sharing arrangements enjoyed by many other occupants of the building, who also share their offices with the knowledge and acquiescence of the landlord and its representatives. In fact, I am aware that Dr. Allan shared Suite 250 with Dr. Nancy Livingstone and Dr. Nelson Santos for approximately 3 years prior to his move into my office under the same sharing arrangement, i.e. without prior written approval from the landlord.

Be that as it may, I am hereby requesting that the landlord agree to the continued office sharing relationship I have had with Dr. Allan. Dr. Allan has practiced in this building for approximately 15 years. In fact we shared Suite 607 in 1996 for some years without any issues or consequences. For the time previously and now, he has been a responsible individual and an asset to have in the office. He maintains a current business and professional license as a Doctor of Chiropractic. His practice is thriving and relocation of his practice will no doubt cause him to suffer a substantial loss of patients and business. My own financial situation remains solid and I remain fully responsible for the rent for my office space.

Although Dr. Allan's relocation will result in a significant loss of cash flow for me, the building is not in any risk of default by me in the payment of rent.

In my conversation with Dr. Allan, we are certain that Lois Agapay, the building manager, has known and has been aware of Dr. Allan's arrangements for the last several years, since his name is on our door and in the locked directories in the garage and in the main lobby. I also understand that Dr. Allan had two different leases with the owners and has demonstrated his obligations to those leases without any consequences. Since I am fully responsible for the rent, singling him out at this time is unreasonable.

Therefore, I believe the refusal of the landlord to agree to Dr. Allan's continued sharing of space in the office can really only be attributed to seeking retaliation for the unrelated disputes that the landlord has with Dr. Allan concerning his blog. As you know, I have not had any part in the blog and therefore I believe it is also unfair to penalize me for your client's own separate and unrelated dispute with Dr. Allan.

Nevertheless, if the landlord insists on disrupting my relationship with Dr. Allan and to avoid legal proceedings against me, he will be prepared to leave within the 30 day period that the landlord has already declined to extend if he is not approved. In light of the information enclosed in this letter, I anticipate that the landlord will agree to my request. Please let me know if Dr. Allan is approved by tomorrow, Tuesday, March 17, 2009 or no later than Wednesday, since that is the 30th day from your initial notice.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Andrew C. Graff, D.C.

cc: Dr. David Allan


Comments: From the beginning, we felt the owners were acting in bad faith and did not want and/or need to provide financial information to them. Dr. Graff and myself felt that any amount of financial documents were still going to result in a rejection. In a matter of hours we got a reply from Joe Agapay - Letter #4.

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

Letter #4

March 16, 2009; Agapay letter to Graff

Re: February 16, 2009 Notice of Default

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

E-mail: jma@agapay.com

March 16, 2009

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
10801 National Boulevard, Suite 580
Los Angeles, California 90064

Re: February 16, 2009 Notice of Default

Dear Dr. Graff:

We are in receipt of a letter of this date that appears to bear your signature. A copy was received mid-day via FAX and what appears to be an additional copy was hand delivered to my office by Dr. David Allan.

This letter commences with an inaccurate and an unwarranted accusatory charge. National Investment Company ("NIC") has made no "request that Dr. Allan leave the premises."
To the contrary, NIC has set out in detail the means by which you and Dr. Allan can, pursuant to the terms of your lease provide sufficient and justifiable information that would, in accordance with NIC's statutory and contractual obligations, compel NIC to not unreasonably withhold approval of Dr. Allan as a subtenant.

After setting forth numerous reasons why the author of this letter believes the "office sharing arrangement" between you and Dr. Allan does not constitute a breach of your lease with NIC the letter requests NIC to advise if Dr. Allan is approved (presumably as a subtenant). In promoting his chiropractic practice in his blog, Dr. Allan has made his subtenancy with you irrefutably clear.

No information of any nature has been received by NIC that would enable it to make a reasonably informed decision as to whether Dr. Allan is or is not an acceptable subtenant. Based on the history Dr. Allan has with NIC as a former tenant that resulted in NIC refusing to any longer enter into a lease with him, and in the absence of any current financial information on Dr. Allan, NIC must conclude Dr. Allan is an unacceptable subtenant.

If the terms of your lease and the cure provisions of the February 16, 2009 Notice of Default are not complied with as of March 18, 2009, an unlawful detainer complaint will be filed against you without any further notice.

Sincerely,
Joe M. Agapay, Jr.
JMA:nb
cc: National Investment Company


Comments: First, Dr. Graff did authorize the March 16, 2009 letter to Agapay and all the statements are true. The letter advised Agapay that Dr. Graff remains financially responsible and that Dr. Allan has a thriving practice. Agapay chose to ignore that info and falsely claimed that no info was provided. Furthermore, the owners have already concluded that "Dr. Allan is an unacceptable subtenant". It's clear that the owners are conducting this campaign as a way of retaliation against my blog and that no amount of additional info will persuade them otherwise.

This letter falsely claims that you made "no request that Dr. Allan leave the premises." Agapay did indeed demand the "removal" of Dr. Allan in the Notice of Default, which demanded that Graff "remove [my] unauthorized subtenant" or face a lawsuit.

Regarding the history of "Dr. Allan", I never applied for another lease with NIC -- So how did NIC refuse to lease to me? How can you possibly question my ability to respond when I have paid rent for 190 consecutive months without any problems.

Joe Agapay may not be aware that I was planning to leave the building in 2005 when my last lease expired, but His wife Lois did. When I was planning to get another place in another building, I asked Lois for a letter of recommendation. That brings us to letter #5.

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

Letter #5

Lois Agapay (aka Lois Forshee) to Whom it may concern

Recommendation letter for Dr. Allan


Lois Forshee, Building Manager
10801 National Blvd Suite 601
Los Angeles, CA 90064
(310) 475-5779

3-28-05

To Whom It May Concern:

Dr. David Allan Orenstein has been a tenant in our AIG / Sun America building for well over 10 years. I certainly do not mind offering my name as a viable reference because he has proven to be a good tenant and has always paid his rent on time. If you have any questions regarding this issue -- please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

Lois Forshee

Comments: When I was planning to move in 2005 from the building, I got a recommendation letter from my residental landlord and one from my business landlord. In Agapay's last letter dated March 16, 2009, Joe was trying to discredit me, when in fact his wife has recommended me as a good tenant. You gotta love that one. FYI - David Allan Orenstein is my full name and my profile and contact info can be accessed on the left side bar of the home page.

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

Letter #6

March 18, 2009; Graff letter to Allan

Final letter from one friend and partner to another and refund

Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
10801 National Boulevard Suite 580
Los Angeles CA 90064
phone (310) xxxx-xxxx

March 18, 2009

Re: February 16, 2009 Notice of Default

Dr. David Allan
10801 National Blvd., Suite 580
Los Angeles, California 90064

Dear Dr. Allan:

As you know, I fought very hard to keep you as a subtenant in my office. In spite of my efforts, NIC has informed me that it concluded that you are not an acceptable subtenant. They have further informed me that you must vacate the office no later than close of business on March 18, 2009 or I will be in default of my lease agreement and an unlawful detainer complaint will be filed against me.

Consequently, I have no choice but to demand that you vacate the premises on March 18, 2009. Enclosed is a check in the sum of $361.29 which represents the balance of the rent for the month of March.

I certainly regret this situation but I have done all that I can do to assist you. I wish you well in your future endeavors.

Sincerely,
Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
ACG/tm

Comments: Although we have a strong case against the owners, Graff's lease declares that the prevailing parties in a lawsuit will recover fees from the losing side. Since I was not on the lease, in the event we lose the case, he would be on the hook for the damages. It was not the risk he was willing to take and I can understand and respect his decision. That's why I moved out -- to protect my friend.

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

Letter #7

March 27, 2009; Kevin P. Hall to Agapay

RE: Dr. David Allan adv. National Investment Co., etc. et al

KULL•HALL LLP
1337 Ocean Avenue, Suite B
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (310) 451-6100
Fax: (310) 451-6033
www.kullhall.com

March 27, 2009

BY FAX 310.470.2602
AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

Joe M. Agapay, Esq.
10801 National Blvd. Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90064

Re: Dr. David Allan adv. National Investment Co., etc. et al.

Dear Mr. Agapay:

We represent Dr. David Allan in connection with his wrongful eviction from Suite 580 in the building located at 10801 National Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064 (the “Building”) and your client’s wrongful interference with his business relationship with Dr. Andrew Graff.

Dr. Allan has shared office space in the Building, with Dr. Graff and others, for approximately 15 years. Your client, the landlord National Investment Company (“landlord” or “NIC”), and your client’s agents and representatives, including you and your wife, Lois Agapay, who is an on-site manager for the landlord, have known about and consented to these office sharing arrangements during Dr. Allan’s lengthy tenure in the Building.

In January 2009, Dr. Allan started a blog about the unpermitted and unlawful supergraphic signs erected by the landlord on the sides of the Building. The signs are the subject of a 44-count criminal complaint against the landlord and its agents, including Lois Agapay, and others, in the action styled People of the State of California vs. World Wide Rush, etc., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court case no. 9CA00023A. According to the criminal complaint, the supergraphic signs were erected by your client without required permits and in violation of various municipal code provisions and a City moratorium on off-site signs (Section 91.6201.1 et seq. of the Los Angeles Municipal Code). The supergraphic signs have also been cited by the Los Angeles Fire Department for other violations and they constitute hazards and a “clear danger” to public health and safety. According to the criminal complaint, the signs also violate the Outdoor Advertising Act codified in the Business and Professions Code, §§ 5200 et seq.

Concerned about the fire and building and safety code violations and the lack of information, input, or warning to occupants and visitors to the Building, Dr. Allan also helped to organize the public into the Coalition for 10801Tenant Safety and Justice (the “Coalition”). The purpose of the Coalition is to educate the public about the hazardous and unlawful conditions at the Building and help prepare occupants and visitors to the Building to deal with the threats to their health and safety.

Within one month of Dr. Allan’s organizing of the Coalition and the posting of his blog on the internet, you served a written Notice of Default and Thirty-Day Notice to Cure to Dr. Graff, falsely accusing him of being in breach of his lease and claiming that the landlord had not consented to his office arrangement with Dr. Allan, when in fact you, your wife and the landlord have known of and consented to their current arrangement and Dr. Allan’s office sharing arrangements with other workers in the Building. Your client’s knowledge and consent are evidenced by, among other things, the placement of Dr. Allan’s name and suite number on the lobby directory and name plate on the suite’s front door.

You also threatened to sue Dr. Graff if he did not terminate his arrangements with Dr. Allan and your client subsequently changed the locks to the suite, effectively locking Dr. Allan out of his own office. Your threats to Dr. Graff unlawfully interfere with Dr. Allan’s existing and prospective economic relations with Dr. Graff and threaten both of their livelihoods. Your client’s threats and false accusations to Dr. Graff are a direct result of, and in retaliation for, Dr. Allan’s complaints about the unlawful and hazardous building and health and safety issues. Your client is also no doubt motivated to stifle public awareness, suppress organization of tenants and workers in the Building, and inhibit tenants, workers and members of the public from asserting their rights.

Dr. Allan is incurring the loss of patients, business, opportunities and other damages every day since he has been wrongfully evicted due to your client’s retaliation and interference with his office sharing arrangements with Dr. Graff. We urge you and your client to reconsider the unlawful and ill-advised eviction of Dr. Allan and demand that he be restored to his offices in Suite 580 in the Building. In the meantime, all of Dr. Allan’s rights, remedies, and claims against the landlord and all others acting in concert with the landlord are hereby reserved.

Please direct all future communications to our office and refrain from any communication with our client.

Very truly yours,

Kevin P. Hall

Comments: There you have it. Once again, no pity please for me. That's the last reason for taking this action. I refuse to play the victim and will never ever consider an emotional distress claim against the owners... Now damages for business losses, and exposing the owners for who they really are -- that's another story.

Two options to respond:

Enter a comment directly to this post or

Send an email to: 10801takesigndown@gmail.com.

VIDEO:JACK WEISS PRESS CONFERENCE AT 10801

Here's a video of the entire press conference (approx. 10 minutes)


City Officials say the ad covering 10801 must come down today!

THIS SUMS UP THE PRESS CONFERENCE: As far as the fire hazard issue, Fry and other LAFD members said the signs could make access to the building by firefighters impossible. "Not only is this [Tropicana] sign illegal because it was put up after the city banned new signs, it is completely a danger to the lives of people working inside of it," said Weiss.

Legal proceedings against the Westwood Blvd building's owner, Frank Rahban, will start if the Tropicana sign doesn't come down by tomorrow, according to City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo.

The news conference was called by Councilman Jack Weiss, a candidate for city attorney who recommended higher fines for property owners caught erecting unpermitted supergraphics. The maximum fine is $2,500 a day.

"We should make it a very clear business decision for them that even one day of an illegal sign costs them money," he said.

David Zahniser from the L.A. Times covered the story -- See L.A. Fire Officials Order Removal of More Supergraphics.


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

Too bad -- The folks that really needed to hear this info were not present -- The Frank Rahban and the owners of 10801, Lois Forshee-Agapay (building manager) and Joe Agapay, Tropicana and Pepsico reps and Barry Rush of World Wide Rush Signage.

In a statement, Attorney Joe Agapay say that the occupants of our building are not at any greater risk since this tarp went up. Well Capt. Kurt Fasmer of the LAPD at the meeting has a different viewpoint and said that Joe just doesn't understand the fire codes.

Also this can be seen and distributed on YouTube.

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