OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO CITY ATTORNEY REPORT RE: COURT RULING

Similar documents
This matter came on regularly before this Court for hearings on October 7,2004 and on April

copy 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff CALMAT CO. dba VTJLCAN MATERIALS COMPANY, WESTERN DIVISION 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES D. SALISBURY DEPUTY CLERK B. HALL, CSL/CT.ASST.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT GRANTING PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. Plaintiff{s),

in furtherance of and in response to its Tentative Decision dated 1/4/2010 addressing various matters

Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 1OCECGO2 116 The Honorable Jeffrey Y. Hamilton, Judge

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 2:14-cv WBS-EFB Document 14 Filed 08/07/14 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiffs and Appellants, Defendants and Res ondents.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Case 5:12-cv EJD Document 1134 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 8

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Case 2:18-cv R-AGR Document 7 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1 The parties to this action, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to. 2 the following:

DISTRICT COURT, FAMILY DIVISION CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Sequoia Park Associates, a California limited partnership, Petitioner and Plaintiff,

MOTION TO STRIKE OPENING BRIEF; PROPOSED ORDER

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SACRAMENTO DIVISION } } } } } } } } } } } } } } /

Part Description 1 5 pages 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order to Motion for Summary Judgment

Administrator (hereinafter collectively "TCERA") oppose the Motion to Reconsider filed by

the unverified First Amended Complaint (the Complaint ) of plaintiffs MIKE SPITZER and

HAROLD P. STURGEON, Plaintiff and Petitioner, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants and Respondents, and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

By S. Lee, Deputy Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

CON. KEhrlichjmbm.com. ECulleyjmbm.com. 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff CALMAT CO. dba VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY, WESTERN DIVISION 7

FAX. IN TUE SUPERIOR COURT OF TUE STATE OF caiafornia INANDFORTHLCQLNTYOELOSANELES. EAST l)i$trict

REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF OPINION. Andre Torigian v. WT Capital Lender Services Case No. F (Fresno County Superior Court No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

a. Name of person served:

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

TO THE HONORABLE TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE, CHIEF JUSTICE, AND TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT:

Case 2:14-cv GW-AS Document 6 Filed 07/07/14 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:389

Jonathan Arvizu v. City of Pasadena Request for Publication Second District Case No.: B Superior Court Case No.: BC550929

vs. ) NOTICE OF RULING 14 )

ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVED Superior Court of California, County of Orange. 02/ at 11:58:07 AM

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT (GLENDALE) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

LODGED. MHY p CLERK, QS DISTRICT COL VIRAL DISTRICT OF CA i, F,, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI A

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

AS MODIFIED. Attorneys for Plaintiff, STERLING SAVINGS BANK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case 2:00-cv GAF-RC Document 435 Filed 05/14/13 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:1893

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO CITY ATTORNEY REPORT RE:

18 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:08-cv BEN-BLM Document 3 Filed 06/17/2008 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

For Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy

Charles Edward Lincoln, pro se 603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6 Austin, Texas Tel:

CIV CIV DS ORDR Order GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF

TAKE ACTION NOW TO PROTECT YOUR INTERESTS!

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN, NORTH KERN DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CHURCHILL

IIAR CONN )14)R1) toliv

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FORTHECOUNTYOFSANTABARBARA

RESPOND TO ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE. March 3, 2011

SAMPLE FORM F NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

December 10, Cohen v. DIRECTV, No. S177734

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO

"Uge EB JAN Daie Prodessod - By: %I, Y-.sT. wij ~1 ~

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. DANIELLE GRIJALVA, an individual, and CSFES, a California Corporation

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO 21 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OMARI BOBO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Petitioners, Real Parties in Interest.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SECOND APPELLATE DISTRlCT, DIVISION TWO. Petitioners and Appellants, Respondent and Appellee,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Petitioner. Respondent. Real Party in Interest.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION

Information or instructions: Plea in abatement motion & Order to quash service Alternate Form

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

PARKER, et al., THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., STIPULATION FOR SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF PURSUANT TO RULES OF COURT, RULE 8.

Federal Pro Se Clinic CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON IMPACT OF CITY'S AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE AT ISSUE IN PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Gk) AUo Superior Court of California CountY of Los Angeles. Sherri R. Carter, xecutive ofricer/clerk Deputv

Case3:11-cv WHA Document33 Filed01/06/12 Page1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. B IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION: FOUR

CLAIM FOR MONEY OR DAMAGES r\eceiyeu WARNING liodesto CITY CLERK Be sure your claim is filed with the' -.. ment Code Section 910 et seq)

STIPULATION FOR JOINT APPENDIX. KAMALA D. HARRIs Attorney General of California. DOUGLAS J. WOODS Senior Assistant Attorney General

TO BE FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Request for Publication

DEC 1 i1z ) FOR DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) ) Time: 439-pm.3) C.D. Michel -

2:11-cv R -JCG Document 58 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:699

PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE

Docket Number: SHOVEL TRANSFER & STORAGE, INC. William G. Merchant, Esquire CLOSED VS.

Transcription:

REPORT NO. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO CITY ATTORNEY 4PR r 7 ~. REPORT RE: COURT RULING LB/L - DS VENTURES PLAYA DEL REY, LLC V. THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. BS 091673 The Honorable City Council of the City of Los Angeles 200 North Spring Street Room 395, City Hall Los Angeles, California 90012 Honorable Councilmembers: In 2004, the City adopted the Westchester-Playa del Rey Community Plan Update, which included a number of zone changes. One of those zone changes imposed [Q] Conditions on a piece of property partially submerged under the Del Rey Lagoon. The owner of that property sued the City claiming that the City failed to give proper notice of the zone change and that the zone change constituted discriminatory spot zoning and a regulatory taking. The court has considered the issues involved and recently ruled that the City failed to give the proper notice. Accordingly, the court has sent the matter back to the City to repeal the [Q] Conditions. Our Office recommends that the City Council comply with the decision of the court and repeal the [Q] Conditions. The City Council would then have the authority to re-impose the [Q] Conditions on the property, this time giving the proper notice. Background: On May 11, 2004, this City Council adopted Los Angeles Ordinance No. 175981, which was part of the Westchester-Playa del Rey Community Plan Update ("CPU"). Among other things, the Ordinance imposed ten [Q] Conditions on a piece of property @ill) AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY- AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 200 NORTH MAl N STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 90012-4131 213.485.6370 213.847.8082 TDD DLl Recyclable and made from recycled waste_ ~~

The Honorable City Council of the City of Los Angeles Page 2 now owned by LB/L- OS Ventures Playa Del Rey, LLC ("LB/L- OS Ventures"). The [Q] Conditions include setback and height restrictions intended to protect development from intruding on the Del Rey Lagoon which covers much of the property. On August 4, 2004, LB/L - OS Ventures filed a lawsuit challenging the City's imposition of the [Q] Conditions on the property. The lawsuit was based on both procedural and substantive grounds. The procedural ground was that the City failed to give proper mailed notice to LB/L - OS Ventures due to problems with the mailing labels. The substantive grounds were that the imposition of the [Q] Conditions treated the property so unfairly as compared to neighboring properties that it amounted to discriminatory "spot zoning" and that the [Q] Conditions were so restrictive that they constituted a regulatory taking of all reasonable use of the property. The court considered the procedural argument first because if that argument proved to be successful it would not be necessary for the court to consider the substantive arguments. In considering the procedural argument, the court found that the City's mailed notice was defective. For this reason, the court ordered the City to repeal the [Q] Conditions. Copies of the proposed writ and judgment are attached. The court, however, expressly stated that the City retains the power to impose the [Q] Conditions (or any other zoning regulations it wishes) so long as the City this time provides the proper mailed notice. Recommendation: ruling. We recommend that the City take immediate steps to comply with the court's To implement the court's ruling, our Office recommends that the City Council direct the Planning Department to initiate the repeal of the [Q] Conditions currently on the property. In addition, the Council also has the discretion to direct the Planning Department to initiate a re-zoning of the property that will place the [Q] Conditions back on the property (or impose any other lawful zoning regulations desired by the Council). An oral motion to do this could be worded as follows: "I move that the City Council direct the Planning Department to initiate the repeal of the [Q] Conditions currently on the real property commonly known as Playa Del Rey Lagoon 2.39 Acres (APN 4116-003-004) or Lot C Del Rey Beach. [optional]

The Honorable City Council of the City of Los Angeles Page 3 I also move that the City Council direct the Planning Department to initiate a re-zoning of the property that will place these [Q] Conditions back on the property." If it is the Council's desire to place the [Q] Conditions back on the property, our Office will work with the Planning Department on the staff report and findings to help protect the City from the spot zoning and takings challenges that LB/L - OS Ventures is likely to assert against the new ordinance. At the time this matter is considered by the City Council, a member of our Office will be available to answer questions you may have concerning this matter. Sincerely, ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO, City Attorney By DAVID MICHAELSON Chief Assistant City Attorney KTF :zra(#120467dset3) Attachments

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DATE: 03/30/06 DEPT. 85 HONORABLE Dzintra Janavs JUDGE S. BARRETT DEPUTY CLERK HONORABLE 1 JUDGE PRO TEM A. GODINEZ 1 C.A. Deputy Sheriff NONE ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR Reporter BS091673 LB/L-DS VENTURES PLAYA DEL RAY vs CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL Plaintiff ~ounsel Defendant Counsel NO APPEARANCES NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: NON-APPEARANCE; MAR 31 2006 The Court has read and considered the City's Objections to Petitioner's (Proposed) Judgment and (Proposed) Writ of Mandate filed March 20 1 2006 and Petitioner's Response to said objections filed March 24/ 2006. The Court signed the proposed amended judgment submitted by petitioner on March 29 1 2006; writ submitted by petitioner is sent to the writ desk. CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/ NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT I 1 the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the above-entitled court/ do hereby certify that I am not a party to the cause herein/ and that this date I served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of 3-30-06 upon each party or counsel named below by depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse in Los Angeles/ California 1 one copy of the judgment original entered herein in a separate sealed envelope for each/ addressed as shown below with the postage thereon fully prepaid. Date: March 30 1 2006 Page 1 of 2 DEPT. 85 MINUTES ENTERED 03/30/06 COUNTY CLERK

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DATE: 03/30/06 DEPT. 85 HONORABLE Dzintra Janavs JUDGE S. BARRETT DEPUTY CLERK HONORABLE 1 A. GODINEZ, C.A. JUDGE PRO TEM Deputy Sheriff NONE ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR Reporter BS091673 LB/L-DS VENTURES PLAYA DEL RAY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL Plaintiff Counsel Defendant Counsel NO APPEARANCES NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk By: llbarreti S. Barrett, Judicial Assistant Charles Jarrell Allen Matkins Leek Gamble and Mallory 515 So. Figueroa 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3398 Kenneth Fong Deputy City Attorney 700 City Hall East 200 No. Main Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Page 2 of 2 DEPT. 85 MINUTES ENTERED 03/30/06 COUNTY CLERK

. \ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OFTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 11 LB/L - DS VENTURES PLAY A DEL REY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 12 Plaintiff and Petitioner, 13 vs. 14 THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES; THE CITY 15 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 16 Defendants and Respondents. 17 Case No. BS 091673 Judge: Hon. Dzintra Janavs so AMBH13E~P'RG:fd@~ED] JUDGMENT GRANTING WRIT OF MANDAMUS Hearing Date: March 7, 2006 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept: 85 18 19 The instant matter came regularly before this Court for hearing at 9:30a.m. on March 7, 20 2006, in Department 85, the Honorable Dzintra Janavs presiding. Charles D. Jarrell appeared on 21 behalf of Plaintiff and Petitioner LB/L - DS Ventures Playa Del Rey, LLC, a Delaware limited 22 liability company ("Petitioner"). Kenneth T. Fong appeared on behalf of Defendants and 23 Respondents The City of Los Angeles and The City Council of The City of Los Angeles 24 ("Respondents"). The record of the administrative proceedings having been received into 25 evidence and examined by the Court, and additional evidence having been received and examined 26 by the Court, arguments having been presented, and the Court having made a statement of 27 decision, which has been signed and filed, 28 Allen Matkins leek Gamble &Mallory UP anomeys at law 712502.01/LA AMBI:I!?EE f#l\isii~d] JUDGMENT

1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: 2 L A peremptory writ of mandamus shall issue from the Court, remanding the 3 proceedings to Respondents and commanding Respondents to, within 40 days of receipt ofthe 4 writ, vacate and repeal Ordinance Number 175981, as adopted by Respondents on May 11, 2004, 5 and all [Q] conditions imposed thereby, to the extent said ordinance and [Q] conditions pertain to 6 that certain real property located in Playa del Rey, California, referred to in the Ordinance as 7 Subarea 40. Respondents shall reconsider their action in light of this Court's statement of 8 decision, and take any further action specially enjoined on it by law; but nothing in this judgment 9 shall limit or control the discretion legally vested in Respondents. The writ shall further command 10 Respondents to, within 60 days of receipt of the writ, make and file a return setting forth what 11 Respondents have done to comply therewith. 12 2. The remaining causes of action set forth in the Petition are hereby dismissed as 13 moot, without prejudice. 14 3. Petitioner shall recover costs in this proceeding, in the amount of$ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: mt~rm:a-f JAN~'f;;, --------- Hon. Dzintra J anavs Judge ofthe Superior Court of the State of California Allen Matkins Leek Gamble &Mallory UP attorneys at Jaw 712502.01/LA -2- A ~4JilWEP EPROPOSI1Ql JUDGMENT

1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL 2 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss.: 4 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) 5 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 6 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 515 South Figueroa Street, Seventh Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071-3398. 7 On March 16, 2006, I served on interested parties in said action the within: 8 AMENDED [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT GRANTING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 9 byp1acinga true copy thereof in sealed envelope(s) addressed as stated below: 10 Kenneth T. Fong, Esq. 11 Deputy City Attorney City of Los Angeles, City Attorney's Office 12 700 City Hall East 200 North Main Street 13 Los Angeles, CA 90012-4130 Tel: (213) 978-8064/ Fax: (213) 978-8214 14 Attorneys for Respondent City of Los Angeles 15 and by transmitting a true copy of said document from facsimile machine whose telephone number is (213) 620-8816, pursuant to Californi<J, Rules of Court, Rule 2005. The 16 facsimile machine I used complied with Rule 2003(3) and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2008( e), 17 I am readily familiar with this firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence 18 for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course ofbusiness. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is 19 presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 20 I declare under penalty of peijury under the laws of the State of California that the 21 foregoing is true and correct. 22 Executed on March 16, 2006, at Los Angeles, California. 23 24 25 Monica F. Brandenberg (Type or print name) 26 27 28 Allen Matkins Leek Gamble &Mallory LLP attorneys allaw 712502.01/LA AMENDED [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT