Crown Body Corp. v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal Mar 17, 1942 No. Civ. 13483Published

Before: Moore

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied a petition for a writ of supersedeas, holding that it lacked the authority to stay proceedings on a stipulated judgment for a mandatory injunction based on an appeal from a subsequent order denying a motion to modify that judgment.

Issues

Whether the court has the authority to grant a supersedeas to stay proceedings on a judgment pending an appeal from an order denying a motion to modify that judgment.
Whether the order denying the motion to modify the injunction is self-executing.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This court has no authority to grant a supersedeas under such circumstances. Such power is limited to restraining action upon the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken.”

“The judgment for injunction is not stayed by an appeal from an order made after the judgment even by filing a bond for stay.”

“If no process is required to be issued for the enforcement of the order, no supersedeas is allowed.”

MOORE, P. J.

This is an original proceeding to effect the suspension of the enforcement of all proceedings under a judgment for mandatory injunction pending appeal from an order refusing to modify the injunction granted some five months prior to such order.

On August 5, 1931, plaintiff instituted its action against defendants for an injunction to enjoin them from operating an asphalt plant within the limits of defendant city on the ground that the operation of such plant constituted a nuisance. Defendants duly filed their answer. Following certain proceedings and in accordance with a stipulation of the parties filed in the action, almost ten years later, to-wit on July 30, 1941, the superior court made and filed an injunction enjoining defendants from operating in any manner or degree whatsoever, in whole or in part, the asphalt plant-described in plaintiff’s complaint after the first day of No

[501]

vember, 1941, and ordering them to commence the dismantling of said plant within fifteen days thereafter. The injunction further provided that at any time after said plant had been dismantled, defendant might construct a new plant on the same property and required that they comply with certain specified requirements. On October 22, 1941, the injunction was modified by extending its effective date to January 1, 1942. Pursuant to such injunction, the operation of the plant was actually suspended January 1, 1942, and has not been operated since that day.

On January 12, 1942, defendants presented their motion to the superior court for a modification of the injunction as amended October 22, 1941, by extending the effective date of the mandatory provision for the dismantling of the plant to “fifteen days after the termination of the present national emergency or within fifteen days after it should become possible to ‘procure materials necessary for the building of a new asphalt plant.” This appeal is from the order denying such motion.

Defendant’s petition recites that the dismantling of the plant was begun January 16, 1942, and has proceeded continuously and diligently to the date of this petition.

The bases of the last motion filed for a modification of the injunction, as contained in the supporting affidavits, are as follows:

Crown Body Corp. v. City of Los Angeles

AI Brief

MOORE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief