Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 07CS00179
BLEASE , Acting P. J.
Appellant Anwar Rashid has a business license issued by the defendant City of Sacramento to retail tobacco products. His license was suspended for 90 days for the sale of cigarettes to a minor pursuant to the City Tobacco Retailer Ordinance, Sacramento City Code section 5.138.100. He sought and obtained an administrative appeal and an evidentiary hearing was held before an administrative hearing officer who affirmed the decision to suspend the license.
Appellant then filed a petition denominated a writ of mandate or prohibition seeking review of the administrative decision in the Superior Court on grounds that he was denied due process of law and that the Sacramento ordinance is preempted by state law. After a hearing the trial judge issued a peremptory writ directing the defendant to set aside its decision on the ground the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that appellant sold cigarettes to a person under the age of 18 years. A judgment was entered in favor of appellant.
The correct designation is administrative writ of mandate. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.)
Since the appellant prevailed below, we will dismiss the appeal on the ground that appellant is not a “party aggrieved” by the judgment as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 902.
We concur: NICHOLSON , J., HULL , J.