Homes on Wheels v. City of Santa Barbara CA2/6

Filed 8/24/16 Homes on Wheels v. City of Santa Barbara CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

HOMES ON WHEELS et al., 2d Civil No. B265630 (Super. Ct. No. 1487246) Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiffs Homes on Wheels, an unincorporated association, Nancy McCradie, Richard Paluch and Peter Marin appeal a judgment dismissing their injunctive/declaratory relief action following the sustaining of a demurrer in favor of defendant City of Santa Barbara (City). We conclude this action is not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel. Plaintiffs, however, do not state sufficient facts to state a cause of action. We affirm. FACTS In 2011, Homes on Wheels, an association of RV owners, and McCradie, a taxpayer, filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the City. In a second amended complaint, they alleged their action “challenge[d] the legal right of [the] City to enact and enforce” Santa Barbara Municipal Code section 10.44.205B, which places “restrictions on access by RV occupants to schools, to churches, to medical offices and hospitals, and to public parks and recreation facilities.”

Homes on Wheels and McCradie alleged: 1) the ordinance is “vague” and “violates the rights of RV dwellers in the City to due process of law”; 2) the City may not post “zones where RV parking is forbidden” without first “publishing the intended action for public comment”; 3) the City should be restrained from “violation of the rights of the disabled RV occupants to park on city streets”; 4) the City’s actions violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12132); and 5) the ordinance “deprives plaintiffs of” their constitutional right to travel. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend. It said, “[P]laintiffs have had two opportunities to amend their complaint,” but they “have not done so.” Their general pleading allegations did not state a cause of action. They “provide[d] no allegations of fact” to challenge the City’s authority to regulate RV parking. In 2015, Homes on Wheels, McCradie, Paluch and Marin filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the City. Homes on Wheels alleged it “advocates for, and represents the rights, of its members,” including those who “possess valid Disabled license plates or parking placards.” McCradie and Marin sued as taxpayers. Plaintiffs alleged facts concerning a City practice not alleged in the prior action. Here they allege that Paluch parks his RV in blue curb zones for disabled parking and displays his disabled placard. Paluch “has been cited . . . by the City” for a parking violation because the City posts “No RV” parking signs in blue curb zones. He “is a licensed holder of a stall at the Weekend Arts and Crafts Market permitted by the City.” Because of “his health conditions,” he needs to park as close as possible to that stall. His “right to park in a disabled space, under state law, pre-empts any contrary designation by the City.” The City’s actions violate “the statutory protection of the rights of access of disabled persons” and the ADA. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend as to Homes on Wheels and McCradie. It ruled the judgment in the 2011 action barred their current action under the doctrine of res judicata. Because Paluch and Marin were not parties or in privity with parties to that prior action, the court ruled they were not barred by res