SERVING THE STATES OF CALIFORNIA AND FLORIDA

RELATED LITIGATION

Related Litigation

The Firm handles matters related to the entire breadth of the Firm’s substantive practice area. Below is a sampling of published decisions.

CASE SUMMARIES

Redevelopment Agency of the County of Riverside v. Superior Court (Birbeck) (1990) 228 Cal.App.3d 1487, 279 Cal.Rptr. 558

Objectors to adoption or amendment of a redevelopment plan must exhaust administrative remedies during plan adoption/amendment process.

Morgan v. Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 243, 284 Cal.Rptr. 745

  1. Statutory requirements for self-formation and representativeness of redevelopment project area committee were met.
  2. Substantial evidence supported determination that project area was blighted.
  3. Discovery is limited in validation actions.
  4. Costs may be assessed against unsuccessful validation action plaintiffs who do not own property in the redevelopment project area.

Lippman v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1630, 286 Cal.Rptr. 406

Project area committee may be disbanded after redevelopment project has been in effect for three years.

Lancaster Redevelopment Agency v. Dibley (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1650, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 593

Use of low and moderate income housing trust funds to pay for construction of freeway overpasses is improper where it will not result in construction of new housing for persons of low and moderate income.

A Local and Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1773, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 358

The city council did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to prepare a subsequent EIR.

Gemtel Corporation v. Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (1994) 23 F.3d 1542

Developer had no right to damages based on redevelopment agency requirement that proposed hotel pay service employees prevailing wages and benefits.

Castaic Lake Water Agency v. City of Santa Clarita (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 1257, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 79

Earthquake emergency recovery redevelopment plan is not exempt from CEQA.

Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 242

  1. Development conditions can be attached to zone changes.
  2. Art in public places programs is a valid method to provide and aesthetic control on development.

City of Livermore v. Pacific Gas & Electric (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1410, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 852

Franchised electric utility must pay cost of relocating utility poles to accommodate street widening.

Bernardi v. City Council of the City of Los Angeles (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 426, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 347

Stipulated judgment in redevelopment plan validation action is binding and conclusive and is not subject to modification.

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Hawthorne v. Force Electronics (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 622, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 209

Statute authorizing payment of judgments over ten years does not apply to judgment in direct condemnation action.

Wagner v. City of South Pasadena (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 943, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 91

In order to meet the requirement of Government Code ? 65009 that an action challenging certain land use decisions be commenced and service made within 90 days of the decision, the initial pleading in such an action must be served in the manner of a summons and complaint.

Beach-Courchesne v. City of Diamond Bar (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 388, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 265

The redevelopment plan adopted by the City of Diamond Bar was found to be invalid because there was not substantial evidence that the proposed project area was blighted.