Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCP02223, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCP02223    Hearing Date: November 13, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: November 13, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Dismissal for Mootness

Moving Party: Respondent City of Los Angeles and Real Party-in-Interest Hi Point M, LLC

Responding Party: Petitioner Hi Point Neighbors’ Association

T/R:      THE PETITIONS ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT.

CLERK TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

The Court considers the moving, opposing, and reply briefs.

The development approvals at issue in these actions were abandoned and voided by the Respondent City on September 16, 2024, mooting the petitions challenging the approvals. The Court ordered supplemental briefing addressing whether the Court should rule on the petitions despite their mootness.

Courts have inherent discretion to decide moot cases in three situations: “ ‘(1) when the case presents an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur [citation]; (2) when there may be a recurrence of the controversy between the parties [citation]; and (3) when a material question remains for the court's determination.’ ” (Santa Monica Baykeeper v. City of Malibu (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1548, citing Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 473, 479-480.)

Petitioner argues that the Court should decide the petitions despite mootness because the City’s practices complained of are likely to reoccur and involve a broad public interest. Petitioner represents that City has provided Transit Oriented Communities (“TOC”) benefits to developments that do not meet the TOC guidelines under an erroneous “longstanding interpretation” of the guidelines. Petitioner asserts that if the Court does not reach the merits of this petition, the City will continue these approvals on other projects at the same intersection as the project here as well as other projects throughout the city.

Respondent argues that the actions should be dismissed because there is no longer a controversy to be decided, and any ruling would be hypothetical and theoretical. Respondent also asserts that Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient evidence showing that the issues in these actions are likely to reoccur or are likely to broadly effect the public interest. The Court agrees.

The Court finds that dismissal is appropriate. Petitioner has not adequately shown that the approval issue or the other issues listed by Petitioners, such as whether noticing requirements for TOC applications satisfy constitutional due process, are likely to recur generally. Nor has Petitioner shown that the issues will recur with this Real Party. Any decision in these cases would be purely advisory and limited to the facts of these petitions.