Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 23STCP00106, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP00106    Hearing Date: April 25, 2024    Dept: 86

MOTION TO ADMIT DECLARATION

Date:               4/25/24 (1:30 PM)

Case:                           National Association of Royalty Owners-California et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al. (23STCP00106)

TENTATIVE RULING:

At the hearing on the Motion to Admit the Declaration of Wayman T Gore, filed by Petitioners National Association of Royalty Owners-California, Inc., Mekusukey Oil Company, LLC, NJB Wolf Family LLC, and The Termo Company’s (collectively, “NARO”), the parties should be prepared to address and discuss the following:

• Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559 held that extra-record evidence is generally not admissible in a traditional mandamus action challenging a quasi-legislative administrative decision on the ground that the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law.  To what extent does that holding apply to enacting a City ordinance?

• At least one court has opined that “[t]he enactment of a zoning ordinance is a quasi-legislative decision.” (Corona-Norco Unified School Dist. v. City of Corona (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 985, 992.) To what extent do the parties agree with that statement?  Does it matter for purposes of applying the holding in Western States whether a City’s passage of a particular ordinance is deemed or labeled legislative or quasi-legislative?

• To the extent a prohibition against a court’s consideration of extra-record evidence is guided by the principle that “[t]he propriety or impropriety of a particular legislative decision is a matter for the Legislature . . . ; such matters are not appropriate for the judiciary” (Western States, 9 Cal.4th at 572), does the consideration of any particular extra-record evidence depend on whether or to what extent the issue before the Court on which such evidence may bear was considered by the Legislature?

• If the answer to the preceding question is yes, to what extent, if any, was the issue (and related evidence) before the Los Angeles City Council concerning whether and/or what activities affected by the Oil and Gas Drilling Ordinance may constitute methods or practices in the oil and gas production industry?  Relatedly, what opportunity, if any, was there to raise such issue (and present evidence) before the Los Angeles City Council?