Plaintiff citizen sued city for its allegedly illegal conduct in selectively enforcing baseless claims of a housing violation for a retaliatory motive. Dispute centered on a granny flat constructed over plaintiff’s garage sometime prior to plaintiff’s purchase of the property. The issue arose when plaintiff commenced eviction proceedings against tenant who complained to city about his allegedly non-permitted residence. A city inspector arrived and cited plaintiff, leading to city determination to condemn the garage apartment.
Plaintiff filed an application with city to open and conduct an adult entertainment business in a particular industrial-commercial section the the city. Another applicant applied to open a church in the same location. The issue was which of the two had won the race to city hall to file first. The city accepted and approved the application of the church. Plaintiff alleged that city employees had actively sought to interfere to give the church priority and rejected plaintiff’s original application to give the church more time to file.
Petitioner sought writ of mandate compelling the DMV to set aside its suspension of his driver’s license for driving with a blood-alcohol concentration at or above 0.08. Petitioner argued that his initial test of 0.084 percent 25 minutes after he was stopped made it likely that his blood-alcohol level was below 0.08 percent when he was driving, and therefore the DMV lacked a basis to suspend his license.
Two administrative mandamus proceedings seeking to overturn a ruling by the California New Motor Vehicle Board concerning recreational vehicle franchises. The first involved modifications of a franchise, the establishment of a competing franchise within the relevant marketing area of a specific dealership, and alleged violations of warranty reimbursement and sales incentive obligations at three separate dealerships. In the second, the dealership challenged the Board’s decision to overrule its protests that manufacturer improperly terminated two franchises.
Medical marijuana dispensary cases. In numerous cases, plaintiffs separately challenged various city ordinances banning the operation of dispensaries within city limits. Plaintiffs asserted that the passage of the Compassionate Use Act, Proposition 215, gave them the absolute right to conduct their businesses anywhere in the State of California. The cities maintained that their authority over land use decisions and police power provided sufficient authority to ban or limit the sale of medical marijuana within their city borders.
Regional joint powers transportation authority sued member city for failing to make required contribution of money derived from added building fees imposed specifically to abate transportation issues. City argued that its own transportation and road work done exclusively within its city limits constituted an in-kind contribution that exempted it from its financial obligation. Since all of its neighboring cities had imposed the required added building fees while defendant city did not, it acquired a competitive edge with lower cost building opportunities for developers.
Defendant had been appointed as a referee by the Riverside County Superior Court to assist the court in arranging for the sale of real property that was then the subject of a partition action between plaintiff and a partner. The Riverside Court granted a motion to approve the sale of the property and approved the referee’s final accounting and proposed distribution and authorized his discharge. Subsequently, plaintiff sued defendant referee in OCSC alleging fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.
City sued massage establishment defendant to abate a public nuisance, in this case prostitution. Undercover police officers had visited on several occasions and were solicited by massage technicians.
Petitioner sought a writ of mandate to set aside the award of a building contract by an Orange County high school district to a competitor. Petitioner argued that the competition’s bid was not responsive, and that the district abused its discretion by accepting the bid.
Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant city seeking to rescind a settlement agreement entered four years earlier on the ground it was entered under duress. The complaint included a prayer for the return of money paid by plaintiffs to the city under the agreement. City asserted that plaintiff had failed to comply with the claims presentation requirement of the Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code sec. 900 et seq.) before filing the complaint. Plaintiff argued the claims presentation requirements of the Act are inapplicable to claims arising from a contract.
Government Related Actions
Hon. David R. Chaffee (Ret.) Mediator • Arbitrator • Discovery Referee