Dana Corp. v. State

Opinion

KINGSLEY, Acting P. J. Plaintiffs appeal from judgments (orders of dismissal) entered after demurrers to their complaints were sustained without leave to amend. We affirm.

In these consolidated actions, the plaintiffs seek damages from the State of California and the Legislature, for repeal of certain legislation. [426]In essence, the complaints (third amended complaint) allege the following:

In November 1971 the Legislature, as part of legislation intended to alleviate the problem of air pollution caused by automobiles, enacted an amendment to the Air Resources Act (Stats. 1971, ch. 1507), empowering the Air Resources Board to adopt standards regulating the emission of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and requiring the installation of devices designed to accomplish that end. There followed a long period during which the board aggressively sought manufacturers (including these plaintiffs) to conduct the necessary studies to permit the manufacture of controls, saleable at a reasonable price. During that period, the board also adopted and amended regulations setting standards for the desired devices and, from time to time, extending the date when compulsory installation of such devices would be required. Plaintiffs, in reliance on the statute, the regulations and the importunities of the board, expended substantial sums in designing the type of devices involved and, ultimately, secured approval of most of the devices so designed. In 1974, the Legislature repealed the NOx legislation, except as to a minor number of motor vehicles. As a result, the market for the devices designed by plaintiffs and approved by the board ceased to exist, causing plaintiffs to lose the monies expended by them on the NOx program.

Demurrers to the complaints were sustained without leave to amend and this appeal followed. We affirm the dismissals.

Plaintiffs attempt to claim a right of recovery on various theories. All of the claims run afoul of the basic rule that the state is not liable for the effect of legislation enacted under the police power for what the Legislature believes is a public purpose. Plaintiffs here contend that the doctrine is subject to exceptions, citing to us two cases: United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey (1977) 431 U.S. 1 [52 L.Ed.2d 92, 97 S.Ct. 1505] and Furey v. City of Sacramento (1979) 24 Cal.3d 862 [157 Cal.Rptr. 684, 598 P.2d 844]. Neither case is in point here.