Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case Number: 23STCP03548, Date: 2024-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCP03548, Date: 2024-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP03548 Hearing Date: August 7, 2024 Dept: 82

Supporters Alliance for Case No. 23STCP03548

Environmental Responsibility

v. Hearing: August 7, 2024

Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse

Department: 82 City of San Gabriel, et al., Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch

[Tentative] Order Overruling Demurrer

INTRODUCTION

Supports Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“Petitioner”) filed this petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the City of San Gabriel and the City Council (collectively, “Respondents” or the “City”). Petitioner challenges Respondents’ decision to approve a project without a review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The court (Beckloff, J.) sustained a demurrer to the petition, finding that the petition is barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioner filed a first amended petition, and Respondents demur on the same grounds. The Real Parties in Interest—Adept Development, American General Design dba Adept Development and Adept Architecture, Povac Investments, Inc. dba Adept Building and Construction, and Las Tunas Medical Office Condo, LLC (the “Real Parties”)—join in the demurrer. The demurrer is overruled.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner challenges City’s approval of the 330 West Las Tunas Drive Project (Planning Case No. PPD21-008) (the “project”), including a Precise Plan of Design for the Project, under CEQA. The Project “involves the demolition of an existing one-story, 5,032-square foot medical office building and associated surface parking lot and the construction of a new five-story, 74,490-square foot medical office building with two levels of subterranean parking on a 63,779-square foot site, totaling approximately 1.46 acres, located at 330 West Las Tunas Drive in the City of San Gabriel.” (Pet. ¶¶ 1-2.) Petitioner contends that Respondents “unlawfully determined that the Project was exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 32 In-Fill Development Categorical Exemption (‘In-Fill Exemption’), 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15332.”

(Id. ¶ 1.)

The City filed a Notice of Exemption on August 17, 2023, noticing exemption of the project from CEQA review pursuant to the In-Fill Exemption. (First Amended Petition (“FAP”) ¶ 49.) Per the 35-day statute of limitations, Petitioner was required to file its petition no later than September 21, 2023. (FAP ¶ 50.) Petitioner’s counsel provided a copy of case filing documents (the petition, the civil case cover sheet, the summons, and the notice of intent to prepare the administrative record) to its electronic filing service on September 21, 2023, at 3:20 p.m. (FAP ¶ 52 & Exh. C.) The documents were received at the clerk’s office in the Northeast District on September 21, 2023, at 4:33 p.m. (FAP Exh. E.) The clerk’s office rejected the filing because the “CA environmental [sic] Quality Act box [was] not checked” on the civil case cover sheet. (FAP Exh. E.) Petitioner’s counsel’s paralegal, Ms. Toyer Grear, contacted the clerk’s office that same date because “there is no such thing as a ‘CEQA box’ on the civil case cover sheet.” (FAP ¶ 57.) The court clerk indicated that confirmed “that this was a clerical error and that the CEQA box did not in fact exist,” but said he would need to speak with a supervisor. (Ibid.) The court clerk called Ms. Grear back on September 26, 2023, and said that even though the original rejection reason was incorrect, the clerk’s office still would not accept the filing because it had to be filed at the clerk’s office at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. (See ibid.) Petitioner re-filed the case at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse that same date.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a pleading, and the grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters. (Code Civil Proc. § 430.30, subd. (a); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “We assume the truth of the allegations in the complaint, but do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of law.” (California Logistics, Inc. v. State (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 242, 247.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) The allegations in the petition must be liberally construed in favor of Petitioner on demurrer. (See Mobil Oil Corp. v Exxon Corp. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 942, 947.) “A demurrer must dispose of an entire cause of action to be sustained.” (Poizner v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.)

DISCUSSION

The court overrules the demurrer because the clerk’s office was required to accept this petition for filing on September 21, 2023. The clerk’s office first rejected the petition because, purportedly, a box on the civil cover sheet was not checked. Even if such a box existed, that would not be a basis to reject the filing. While the clerk’s office may refuse to file a pleading that does not conform to the California Rules of Court, the clerk’s office does not have authority to reject a pleading for other reasons. (See Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1276; see also Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 777.) As Justice Arthur Gilbert recognized:

It is difficult enough to practice law without having the clerk’s office as an adversary. Here, paltry nit-picking took the place of common sense and fairness. Where, as here, the defect, if any, is insubstantial, the clerk should file the complaint and notify the attorney or party that the perceived defect should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

(Rojas, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at 777.) But such a box does not exist, so there really was no basis to reject the filing.

Nor did the clerk’s office have authority to reject the petition because it was filed in the wrong location. It is true that Local Rule 3.232(b) makes clear that CEQA actions must be filed in the Central District (i.e., the Stanley Mosk Courthouse). Again, the clerk’s office may only reject a pleading for non-conformity with the California Rules of Court. “[I]f a pleading presented for filing complies with [the California Rules of Court], the clerk may not refuse to file it for lack of compliance with a Los Angeles Superior Court local rule.” (Carlson, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at 1276.) This is consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 402(a)(3) which states that “the clerk may not reject a case for filing, because it is filed, or a person seeks to file it, in a court location other than the location specified by local rule.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 402(a)(3).) Instead, “the court may transfer the case on its own motion to the proper court location.” (Ibid.)

Based upon the foregoing, the petition is deemed to have been filed on September 21, 2023. Therefore, the demurrer is overruled.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows:

1. The demurrer is overruled.

2. Respondents and the Real Parties shall file answers within ten (10) days.

3. The court sets trial for _________, 2024, at 9:30 a.m.

4. The opening brief shall be filed and served at least 60 days in advance of trial; the opposition brief shall be filed and served at least 30 days in advance of trial; and the reply brief shall be filed and served at least 15 days in advance of trial. Petitioner’s counsel shall lodge the administrative record on a thumb drive at least 15 days in advance of trial.

5. Respondents’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of service with the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2024

______________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Superior Court Judge