CALIFORNIA CASE SUMMARY UPDATE: Real Property Case Summaries

By: Monty McIntyre, Esq.

California Case Summaries™ (https://cacasesummaries.com)

Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. publishes California Case Summaries™, which provides one-paragraph summaries, that can be read in 2 minutes and are organized by legal topic, of every new civil case published in California. Monty’s publication makes it quick and easy for California lawyers to know the new cases in their practice areas, and apply that knowledge to work up their cases better, make better arguments, get bigger settlements, and win more summary judgments and trials to make more money. Monty also works as a Mediator, Arbitrator and Referee at ADR Services, Inc., handling matters in the areas of business, employment, insurance (bad faith, coverage, UIM), probate (trusts and estates), real property and torts (elder abuse, medical malpractice, personal injury, product liability and wrongful death). To schedule a matter, contact Monty’s case managers at ADR Services, Haward Cho, haward@adrservices.com, (213) 683-1600, or Rachael Boughan, rboughan@adrservices.com, (619) 233-1323.  Finally, Monty helps law firms quickly train their associates with his Master Lawyer Master Mentoring™ services. For more information, call Monty at (619) 990-4312 or visit his website at https://montymcintyre.mykajabi.com.    

JUNE 2023

CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL

Environment

Preservation Action Council of San Jose v. City of San Jose (2023) _ Cal.App.5^th _ , 2023 WL 3365082” The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying a petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn respondent’s approval of certification of a final supplemental environmental impact report (Final SEIR) for a proposed development of three, high-rise office towers as part of the City View Plaza Office Project sitting on an eight-acre site containing several historic structures in downtown San Jose. Conducting a de novo review, the Court of Appeal concluded that the Final SEIR adequately discussed mitigation for the unavoidable loss of significant historic resources and complied with the California Environmental Quality Act. (C.A. 6th, filed April 18, 2023, published May 10, 2023.)

Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (2023) _ Cal.App.5^th _ , 2023 WL 3567843: The Court of Appeal vacated the trial court’s judgment granting a writ petition and directed the trial court to dismiss the writ petition. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code,1 § 21000 et seq.) challenging (1) respondent’s adoption of a project to develop new academic, residential, and parking buildings on University of California, Berkeley’s campus, and (2) respondent’s certification of the related final supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR). The trial court granted the petition, finding in relevant part that certain aspects of the SEIR’s analysis of increased student enrollment at UC Berkeley did not comply with CEQA and ordered respondent to decertify and revise the SEIR and suspend any further increases to student enrollment. The Court of Appeal concluded that respondent’s subsequent certification of a new long-range development plan and related environmental impact report (2021 EIR), and passage of Senate Bill 118 mooted petitioner’s challenge to the student enrollment increases and made unenforceable the trial court’s orders suspending student enrollment increases. It also affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that the SEIR’s project description complied with CEQA and found no error in the SEIR’s discussion of mitigation measures for historic resources. (C.A. 1st, filed April 27, 2023, published May 19, 2023.)

Landlord-Tenant

65282 Two Bunch Palms Building LLC v. Coastal Harvest II, LLC (2023) _ Cal.App.5^th _ , 2023 WL 3268852: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment of possession for plaintiff in its unlawful detainer action, awarding plaintiff $180,000.13 in holdover damages. Defendant argued at trial and on appeal that it operated a licensed cannabis operation on the property and, therefore, it could not be evicted because it was entitled to the presumption under Civil Code section 1943 of a one-year tenancy for “agricultural . . . purposes” and the presumption of a one-year holdover tenancy for use of “agricultural lands” under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision 2. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court, concluding that plaintiff rebutted the presumption under Civil Code section 1943 with evidence that the parties agreed that, unless they signed a written lease, the term of the oral lease was month-to-month. And, because this unlawful detainer action was not filed for failure to pay rent, Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision 2, and its holdover presumption for “agricultural” tenants did not apply. (C.A. 4th, May 5, 2023.)

Childhelp, Inc. v. City of L.A. (2023) _ Cal.App.5^th _ , 2023 WL 3274645: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s orders, in a consolidated case of two actions, granting defendant City of L.A.’s (City) motion for summary adjudication on plaintiff Childhelp Inc.’s (Childhelp) cause of action for promissory estoppel, sustaining without leave to amend defendant City’s demurrer to plaintiff’s causes of action for declaratory relief and writ of mandate, and granting plaintiff City’s motion for summary judgment on its unlawful detainer complaint. In 1986 Childhelp, Inc., a nonprofit corporation that provides services to victims of child abuse, leased real property from the City. The lease provided that, in lieu of paying rent, Childhelp would provide treatment for child abuse victims and that after 20 years the City would consider conveying the property to Childhelp. In 2014, the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution directing various City departments and officials to prepare and execute the necessary approvals and agreements to convey the property to Childhelp, in exchange for Childhelp’s agreement to continue using the property to provide services for victims of child abuse. The City later decided not to convey the property to Childhelp. In response Childhelp filed its action against the City, and the City filed its unlawful detainer action against Childhelp. The Court of Appeal concluded that the 2014 resolution was not sufficient to transfer the real property, because it could only be transferred by an ordinance, and the trial court properly granted the various motions. (C.A. 2nd, filed April 17, 2023, published May 5, 2023.)