Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2021-00030444-CU-CR-CTL, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 29, 2024

03/01/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Civil Rights Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00030444-CU-CR-CTL WILLIAMS VS THE CITY OF LEMON GROVE [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant City of Lemon Grove's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.

Defendant's request for judicial notice is granted.

'A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed.' (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) To test the sufficiency of a cause of action, the court treats as true 'all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.' (Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates v. Health Net of California, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 994, 1010.) The court shall give the complaint a 'reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.' (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Here, Defendant argues the complaint is subject to dismissal because Plaintiffs Christopher Williams and Pickaxe Holdings LLC failed to exhaust judicial remedies by filing a complaint rather a petition for writ of mandate in connection with Defendant's denial of their application for a conditional use permit.

According to Defendant, by failing to petition for a writ of mandate, Plaintiffs' complaint is barred by collateral estoppel. (See Knickerbocker v. City of Stockton (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 235, 241-42 ['Judicial exhaustion is a species of res judicata . . . . The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the relitigating of issues which were previously resolved in an administrative hearing by an agency acting in a judicial capacity.'].) The court agrees; at their core, Defendants' claims are founded on a contention that Defendant's decision to deny the permit was retaliation for filing a separate personal injury action against Defendant, and thus, was an abuse of discretion. The appropriate avenue to attack the decision was via a petition for writ of mandate. (Id. at pp. 243-44 ['Unless the administrative decision is challenged, it binds the parties on the issues litigated and if those issues are fatal to a civil suit, the plaintiff cannot state a viable cause of action.'].) However, this deficiency is curable by amendment, as Plaintiffs filed this case within 90 days of April 20, 2021, the date Defendant denied Plaintiffs' appeal. (Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (c)(1).) The court is not persuaded that an amendment would not relate back to that initial filing date. Indeed, Defendant's judicial remedies argument is intertwined with relation back; an issue sought to be relitigated that is identical to the previously decided issue necessarily also must 'rest on the same general set of facts, involve the same injury, and involve the same 'instrumentality' or cause of injury.' (Hutcheson v. Superior Court (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 932, 940.) The related rule that the relation back doctrine 'cannot be used to frustrate the intent of the Legislature to require compliance with administrative procedures as a Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3062263  14 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  WILLIAMS VS THE CITY OF LEMON GROVE [IMAGED]  37-2021-00030444-CU-CR-CTL condition to filing an action' does not compel rejection of the doctrine under these circumstances.

(Esparza v. Safeway, Inc. (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 42, 60.) The purpose of the 90-day limitations period is 'to provide certainty for property owners and local governments regarding decisions made pursuant to this division.' (Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (a)(3).) This purpose was served when Plaintiffs filed a case challenging Defendant's decision, thereby giving sufficient notice of such intent, and notwithstanding the procedural misstep of failing to petition for a writ of mandate. Again, if the underpinnings of Plaintiffs' claims as plead are sufficient to trigger collateral estoppel, then they are also sufficient to give adequate notice of Plaintiffs' intent to challenge Defendant's administrative decision. Defendant also will not be unfairly prejudiced by allowing such amendment; although this case was filed more than two years ago, it was Defendant that delayed in addressing this pleadings issue.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, and Plaintiffs will have leave to amend.

Plaintiffs have 30 days from entry of this order to file an amended complaint/petition.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3062263  14