California Case Summaries™ (https://californiacasesummaries.mykajabi.com)
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. is the publisher of California Case Summaries™. Monty has been a California civil trial lawyer since 1980, a member of ABOTA since 1995, and currently works as a full-time mediator, arbitrator and referee with ADR Services, Inc. (ADR) in ADR’s offices in San Diego, Irvine, and Los Angeles. California Case Summaries™provides short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new published civil and family law case so California lawyers can easily and affordably keep up with the new case law in their practice areas. Monthly, quarterly and annual subscriptions are available.
1041 20th Street v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2019)_ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 3425279: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s orders granting petitions for writs of administrative mandamus and ordering declaratory relief because it found that respondent was equitably estopped from asserting that rental properties were subject to rent control. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that respondent did not have authority to permanently exempt rental units from rent control by a permit pursuant to the Santa Monica City Charter, article XVIII, section 1803(t), and thus could not be equitably estopped. (C.A. 2nd, July 30, 2019.)
Hollywoodians Encouraging Rental Opportunities v. City of L.A. (2019)_ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 2710076: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying a writ petition seeking to overturn the approval by respondents of a project to convert a vacant 18-unit apartment building into a boutique hotel. Because the building at issue had been withdrawn from the rental market years before respondent City of L.A. commenced environmental review for the hotel project, there were no loss of rent-stabilized housing units or displacement of tenants issues to consider, and respondent was not required by the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, section 21000 et seq.) to prepare an environmental impact report. (C.A. 2nd, filed June 28, 2019, published July 22, 2019.)
Ranch at the Falls LLC v. O’Neal (2019)_ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 3453201: For multiple reasons, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment finding plaintiff was entitled to an express easement (or an alternative prescriptive easement) and an equitable easement over all the private streets in a gated community called Indian Springs in Chatsworth, and was entitled to express (or an alternative prescriptive) and equitable easements over a homeowner’s lot in an adjacent gated community called Indian Oaks. The trial court erred in concluding the homeowners in Indian Springs were not indispensible parties. It erred in finding an express easement over all streets in Indian Springs. It erred in mentioning an alternative prescriptive easement because plaintiff did not prove the requirements for a prescriptive easement. There were no necessary findings to support an equitable easement, and the record did not contain evidence to support the factors necessary to impose an equitable easement. Finally, while a recorded easement existed over the Lenope property, plaintiff could not use that easement because it could not be reached except through the private streets of Indian Springs, to which plaintiff had no right of access. (C.A. 2nd, July 31, 2019.)