Judge: Robert P. Dahlquist, Case: 37-2023-00006068-CU-WM-NC, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 08, 2024

01/08/2024  02:30:00 PM  N-29 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert P Dahlquist

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Writ of Mandate Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2023-00006068-CU-WM-NC JACOBS VS. CITY OF VISTA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 09/28/2023

Respondent City of Vista and Real Party in Interest California West Communities, LLC's motion for summary adjudication (ROA # 81) is granted in part and denied in part.

The moving parties' requests for judicial notice (ROA # 84 and 117) are granted. Petitioner Gabriel Jones' request for judicial notice (ROA # 113) is granted. The court takes judicial notice of the existence and legal effects of the subject materials.

The court overrules the moving parties' evidentiary objections (ROA # 118): The evidentiary rulings are not material to the outcome of this motion. The outcome of the motion would be the same regardless of the rulings on the evidentiary objections.

The City and RPI move for summary adjudication of four issues: (1) the first cause of action is time-barred; (2) the second cause of action is time-barred; (3) the fourth cause of action is time-barred; (4) the fourth cause of action, alleging the improper vacation of an easement under the open-space easement act of 1974, is barred because the easement was not validly accepted under that Act.

In analyzing motions for summary adjudication, courts must apply a three-step analysis: (1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings to be addressed; (2) determine whether moving party has shown facts justifying a judgment in movant's favor; and (3) determine whether the opposing party has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material issue of fact. Sun v. City of Oakland (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1182-83.

In ruling on a summary judgment motion/ summary adjudication, the court must 'liberally construe' the opposing party's evidence and 'strictly scrutinize' the moving party's evidence, and 'resolve any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities' in favor of the opposing party. McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College District (2008) 45 Cal.4th 88, 96 – 97. Similarly, 'any doubts as to the propriety of granting a summary judgment motion should be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion.' Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 535.

Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues 1 and 2 The motion for summary adjudication as to issues 1 and 2 is denied. The court has carefully considered the arguments, authorities and evidence presented by the parties. The court finds that the moving Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3071354 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  JACOBS VS. CITY OF VISTA [IMAGED]  37-2023-00006068-CU-WM-NC parties have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that the Project did not require discretionary State approvals. As such, the moving parties have not shown that 14 Cal. Code Regs. §15075(d) is inapplicable. The court is not persuaded that there is a conflict between the regulation and the applicable statute. Instead, it appears that the regulation imposes an additional notice requirement in certain cases to the statutory notice requirement set forth in the Public Resources Code § 21167(b).

Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issue 3 The motion for summary adjudication as to issue 3 is granted. The deadline to challenge land use approvals (other than a CEQA decision) expires ninety days after the agency makes its decisions.

Government Code §65009(c) (general); Government Code §66499.37 (subdivisions); AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. City of Los Angeles (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 322.

In this case, the City Council approved the easement vacation on November 15, 2022. Thus, any challenge had to have been filed within 90 days of November 15, or February 13, 2023. Since that day was a holiday, the date is extended to February 14, 2023.

The initial petition was filed on February 14, 2023 and, although it contained allegations relating to the easement, it did not allege that the easement vacation was improper. The claim that the easement vacation was improper was not asserted until the filing of the first amended petition. (ROA # 51) The first amended petition was filed more than 90 days after the easement was vacated by the City Council.

Under these circumstances, the court finds that the claim challenging the decision to vacate the easement is time barred. See Government Code § 65009(c); see also City of Vista v. Robert Thomas Securities, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 882, 889.

Therefore, the motion for summary adjudication of issue number 3 is granted.

Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issue 4 The motion for summary adjudication of issue number 4 is granted. The moving parties have demonstrated that the easement was not accepted under the 1974 Act and, as such, the City did not have to follow the 1974 Act's procedures to vacate it. Instead, the city was permitted to summarily vacate the easement. See Government Code §§51083 and 51084; see also RJN (ROA # 84), Exhs. 7 and 8.

Therefore, the motion for summary adjudication as to issue 4 is granted.

This minute order constitutes the court's order on this matter. No party is required to submit a proposed order after hearing.

This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing (in person or remote) at 2:30 p.m. on Monday, January 8, 2024. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of January 8, 2024. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3071354