Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case: 20STCP02593, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCP02593 Hearing Date: March 8, 2024 Dept: 86
GREENENVTECH, LLC v. THE
DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL PLANNING FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Case No. 20STCP02593
Hearing Date: March
8, 2024
[Tentative] ORDER DENYING PETITION and TRANSFERRING
CAUSES OF ACTION TWO
THROUGH SIX TO DEPARTMENT ONE
Petitioners filed
this action on August 13, 2020. The petition and complaint contains seven
causes of action. The first cause of action seeks a writ of mandate. The
seventh cause of action seeks declaratory relief that is wholly derivative of
the first cause of action.
On May 12, 2021, the
court stayed the litigation for the second through sixth causes of action. The
court also stayed the litigation for the seventh cause of action only to the extent
that cause of action seeks relief related to the second through sixth causes of
action. As the seventh cause of action is wholly derivative of the first cause
of action, the seventh cause of action has not been stayed.
On May 12, 2021, the
court set this matter for trial on March 9, 2022.
On January 10, 2022, the
parties submitted a stipulation and request to continue the trial. The court
accepted the stipulation and granted the request. The court calendared the
matter for trial on September 14, 2022.
On September 12,
2022, the parties submitted their second stipulation and request to continue
the trial. The court accepted the stipulation and granted the request. The court
calendared the matter for trial on June 14, 2023.
On March 13, 2023,
the parties submitted their third stipulation and request to continue the
trial. The court accepted the stipulation and granted the request. The court
calendared the matter for trial on November 1, 2023.
On September 11,
2023, Respondents filed a notice Petitioners had failed to file an opening brief.
At trial, on November
1, 2023, the court provided the parties with a tentative decision. The court
advised Petitioner it could not prevail where it had not filed an opening brief
or provided any evidence to support its Code of Civil Procedure section 1085
claim. Petitioners requested another continuance. The court granted Petitioners’
request and set today’s date for trial.
Today is the fifth
time this court has had this matter calendared for trial.
On January 24, 2024,
Respondents filed a notice Petitioner had failed to file an opening brief.
Evidence Code section
664 creates a presumption “that official duty has been regularly performed.”
(Evid. Code, § 664.) Given the presumption and Petitioners’ burden in mandamus,
it follows that Petitioners have not met their burden—that is, they have not
overcome the presumption of regularity contained in Evidence Code section
664—where they file no opening brief demonstrating error.
Additionally,
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1103 provides writ petitions are considered
law and motion matters. (Cal. Rules of Court [CRC], Rule 3.1103, subd. (a)(2).)
A memorandum must be filed in support of a law and motion matter. (CRC, Rule
3.112, subd. (a)(3).) A party filing a motion “must serve and file a supporting
memorandum.” (CRC, Rule 3.113, subd. (a).) The memorandum must set forth “a
statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments
relief on, and a discussion of statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support
of the position advanced.” (Id. at subd. (b).) The failure to file a
memorandum may be construed by the court as an admission the motion “is not
meritorious and cause for its denial.” (Id. at subd. (a).)
Petitioners’ failure
to file an opening brief is fatal to their claims under Code of Civil Procedure
section 1085 and for declaratory relief. Without an opening brief, the court
cannot determine whether Respondents properly discharged any ministerial,
mandatory and non-discretionary duties. Moreover, there is no evidentiary basis
for the court to take any action here. (See California Oak Foundation v.
Regents of the University of California (201) 188 Cal.App.4th 227,
255-256.)
CONCLUSION
Based on the
foregoing, the petition is denied—Petitioners have not met their burden of
demonstrating error.
Having resolved
Petitioners’ first cause of action for a writ of mandate and seventh cause of
action for declaratory relief, the remaining causes of action (two through six)
are transferred to Department 1 for reassignment to a non-writ department. The
stay ordered on May 12, 2021 is lifted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 8, 2024 ________________________________
Hon.
Mitchell Beckloff
Judge
of the Superior Court