Dunitz v. City of Los Angeles

NOURSE, J. pro tem.

*

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment dismissing the action entered after defendants’ demurrer to

[401]

the complaint as amended had been sustained without leave to amend.

1

By their complaint plaintiffs sought to have the court declare “that Sections 91.0103, 96.101, 96.101.2, 96.112, 96.119 and 96.121 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code” as interpreted and applied by the defendants are invalid and unconstitutional and to have the court declare the proper meaning thereof and to enjoin the defendants from prosecuting certain proceedings against the property of the plaintiffs otherwise than in conformity with the meaning and interpretation given to the said code sections of the municipal code by the court.

We have reached the conclusion that the lower court properly exercised its discretion under section 1061 of the Code of Civil Procedure in sustaining the demurrer and thereby denying the plaintiffs declaratory relief. Whether declaratory relief should be granted is a matter within the trial court’s discretion and its denial of that remedy will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly shown that the discretion was abused.

(Hannula

v.

Hacienda

Homes,

Inc.,

34 Cal.2d 442, 448 [211 P.2d 302, 19 A.L.R.2d 1268];

California Physicians’ Service

v.

Garrison,

28 Cal.2d 790, 801 [172 P.2d 4, 167 A.L.R. 306];

Moss

v.

Moss,

20 Cal.2d 640 [128 P.2d 526, 141 A.L.R. 1422].)

By the complaint as amended plaintiffs allege in substance that they are the owners of approximately 12]4 acres of land situate in the manufacturing district of the city of Los Angeles and that there are approximately 30 buildings of various ages and types of construction situate thereon; that this property has a value in excess of one million dollars. That prior to the commencement of this action they received notices from the Department of Building and Safety of the defendant city that the building inspectors of the city had filed with the Board of Building and Safety Commissioners of the city of Los Angeles reports as to the condition of said buildings and that the board had determined that there was probable cause to believe that each of the buildings and structures described in the notices was a “dangerous” building and ordered plaintiffs to show cause before the board at a time fixed in the notice, why said buildings or structures “should not be condemned as a public nuisance and said nuisance be abated by reconstructing or properly repairing said building or by razing or