CITY OF PALMDALE v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

No. B232833.

206 Cal.App.4th 329 (2012)

141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 719

CITY OF PALMDALE et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Defendant and Appellant; CITY OF POMONA, Real Party in Interest and Appellant. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Defendant and Appellant; CITY OF POMONA, Real Party in Interest and Appellant. CITY OF ALHAMBRA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Defendant and Appellant; CITY OF POMONA, Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One.

May 23, 2012.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Kamala D. Harris , Attorney General, W. Dean Freeman and Marta L. Smith , Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Appellant.

Ajalat, Polley, Ayoob & Matarese, Richard J. Ayoob , Gregory R. Broege ; Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin, Arnold M. Glasman and Andrew Jared for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Richards, Watson & Gershon and Mitchell E. Abbott for Plaintiffs and Respondents City of Palmdale, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palmdale, City of Beverly Hills, City of Hawthorne, City of La Mirada, La Mirada Redevelopment Agency, City of Norwalk, City of Pasadena, Pasadena Community Development Commission and City of South El Monte.

Carmen A. Trutanich , City Attorney, Beverly A. Cook , Assistant City Attorney, and Pejmon Shemtoob , Deputy City Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent City of Los Angeles.

Burke Williams & Sorensen and Richard R. Terzian for Plaintiffs and Respondents City of Alhambra, Alhambra Redevelopment Agency, City of Diamond Bar, City of El Segundo, City of Industry, City of Lancaster, City of Monterey Park, City of West Hollywood and City of Santa Clarita.


OPINION

MALLANO, P. J.

In this appeal from the granting of a petition for a writ of administrative mandate, the parties have filed a motion to settle the case pursuant to a stipulation requiring that we vacate the trial court's judgment and reinstate the agency's decision. We deny the motion for vacatur because the interests of the public would be adversely affected if the judgment were vacated.

In particular, the judgment faults...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases