Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV00214, Date: 2024-11-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00214    Hearing Date: November 26, 2024    Dept: I

This is an ex parte application by developer Scenic View to file a complaint in intervention alleging that the City of Malibu is violating a stipulated judgment entered by the court on May 13, 2024.  That judgment allows the State to apply, ex parte, to remedy a violation.  Scenic View’s theory is that the judgment requires Malibu to build affordable housing in compliance with state law, and it has not done so.  Malibu has, it is alleged, submitted a number of applications to the State, but all have been rejected.  Scenic View’s proposal, it argues, would cause Malibu to be in compliance, but Malibu will not approve the proposal for reasons that Scenic View contends are silly.  Malibu, in opposition, denies that Scenic View has established a right to intervene or that the issue is even ripe, and, of course, it denies violating the judgment.

The initial problem is that the court sees no exigency here.  While the State can come in ex parte to allege a violation of the judgment between it and Malibu, the court does not understand why Scenic View can do so.  Without some special something, the court does not hear ex parte matters except where there are exigent circumstances.  Scenic View makes no effort to describe any exigency.

Therefore, the application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the filing of a noticed motion, which Malibu may, of course, oppose (as may the Statet).  The court does not anticipate hearing argument on this matter today, at least unless the State wants to be heard.