Demurrer
5/20/26, the discovery issues were deemed resolved, with documents having been provided, and a stipulated monetary sanction was imposed. (ROA 103.) In light of that ruling, the request for evidentiary/terminating sanctions is MOOT.
The OSC re: status of unrepresented entity remains on calendar.
Plaintiff shall give notice.
302 Edward B. Before the Court is a demurrer by the City of Riahi, trustee of Laguna Beach (City) to the Verified First Amended the EBR Trust, Petition for Writ of Mandate (FAP) filed by Edward dated May 29, B. Riahi, as trustee of the EBR Trust, dated 5/29/15 2015 vs. City of (Petitioner). The demurrer is SUSTAINED, as set Laguna Beach forth herein.
Petitioner is granted 14 days leave to amend.
City’s unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code §452(b)&(d).)
Petitioner alleges that “The City Council approved the RPI Project on April 22, 2025.” (FAP ¶37) “The RPI Project was expressly conditioned on the subsequent approval of an access easement across the City Parcel.” (FAP ¶40) The City then approved the access easement at the same hearing. (FAP ¶44)
The City's chief contention is that the causes of action stated are barred by Government Code section 65009(c). (Unless otherwise specified, all statutory references are to the Government Code.) Section 65009 “is intended 'to provide certainty for property owners and local governments regarding decisions made pursuant to this division' (§ 65009, subd. (a)(3)) and thus to alleviate the 'chilling effect on the confidence with which property owners and local governments can proceed with projects' (id.,
subd. (a)(2)) created by potential legal challenges to local planning and zoning decisions.” (Travis v. County of Santa Cruz (2004) 33 Cal.4th 757, 765.)
To this end, section 65009 establishes a short statute of limitations, 90 days, applicable to actions challenging several types of local planning and zoning decisions. Here, the focus is on Section 65009(c)(1)(E) which states: “Except as provided in subdivision (d), no action or proceeding shall be maintained in any of the following cases by any person unless the action or proceeding is commenced and service is made on the legislative body within 90 days after the legislative body's decision: ...(E) To attack, review, set aside, void, or annul any decision on the matters listed in Sections 65901 and 65903, or to determine the reasonableness, legality, or validity of any condition attached to a variance, conditional use permit, or any other permit.”
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The parties do not dispute the petition was served on the City more than 90 days after the 4/22/25 decision to approve the RPI Project and grant the easement.
The dispositive issue is whether section 65009(c)(1)(E) applies here based on the allegations in the FAP. Resolution of this issue applies to all five causes of action because each cause of action seeks an order to vacate and set aside the decision to grant the easement. (FAP ¶¶90, 108, 116, 126, 130)
Petitioner does not dispute that any challenge to the validity of the decision to issue the permit for the RPI Project was required to be filed within 90 days pursuant to section 65009(c)(1)(E). Petitioner affirmatively states in the FAP that the approval of the RPI Project was “expressly conditioned” on approval of the easement. Petitioner further
alleges that the Morningside Property did not meet the requirements of Laguna Beach Municipal Code §25.08.004 as a “building site” because of the lack of access without an easement, thus explaining how the granting of project approval and the easement were intertwined components of the same decision. (FAP ¶26, 28)
Based on the allegations in the petition, it is apparent that Petitioner seeks to challenge the entire decision to allow construction on the Morningside property. While Petitioner claims he is not challenging discretionary development approvals but is instead challenging “illegal” conduct, the gravamen of the action is to challenge the City’s decision to approve the RPI project, which included granting the easement. (See, AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. City of Los Angeles (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 322, 337-338; see also, Weiss v. City of Del Mar (2019) 39 Cal. App. 5th 609, 622–624.)
Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED, with 14 days leave to amend.
In light of ROA 79, the 8/3/26 OSC re status of unrepresented trustee is vacated. The court continues the status conference from 8/3/26 to 11/2/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24.
City shall give notice.
304 Axos Bank vs. The court withholds a tentative ruling. Parties Taylor Heavy shall come prepared to present brief argument and Haul, LLC answer questions.
306 Sweet James, The motion of defendant Ninad Upasani for an LLP vs. Upasani order granting leave to file proposed a cross- complaint is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to correct the caption on the proposed cross-complaint and then file the original with the Court within 10