Citizens for Oxnard v. Maron

Opinion

ABBE, J. This is an appeal from an order sustaining demurrers without leave to amend and awarding attorney’s fees to defendants. This case arises out of the approval on April 7, 1981, by the City Council of the City of Oxnard acting as the governing board of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oxnard, of a development and disposition agreement (DDA II) for the redevelopment of a seven block area of the central part of the City of Oxnard, California. On October 27, 1981, the city council approved and certified the environmental impact report for DDA II. The defendant Dorothy Marón was a member of the city council and voted to approve both DDA II and the environmental impact report. Dorothy Marón is the wife of defendant Erwin Marón and the mother of defendant David Marón.

The day after the EIR was approved, that is on October 28, 1981, plaintiffs filed this suit pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974, now codified in the Government Code1 commencing with section 81000, setting forth two causes of action. The first cause of action sought injunctive relief against defendant Dorothy Marón under section 91003 to enjoin her from violating section 87100 by participating in any decision or attempting to influence any decision of the city council regarding DDA II and the EIR because of an alleged conflict of interest. Additionally, in the first cause of action the plaintiffs requested an injunction against defendants Erwin and David Marón “from joining” with Dorothy Marón to violate section 87100 on the basis of section 91006. In the second cause of action plaintiffs sought to void the approval of the DDA II and the EIR in accordance with the provisions of section 91003, subdivision (b).

Plaintiffs allege that prior to the approval of DDA n, Erwin and David Marón participated with others in the first steps in the formation of a bank to be located across the street from the redevelopment project and that Erwin and David Marón made capital contribution to the association to form the bank, thereby creating a conflict of interest prohibiting Dorothy Marón from participating in the votes on approval of DDA II and the EIR.

On November 20, 1981, the City Council of the City of Oxnard announced that the redevelopment agency had terminated DDA II and the project was to be abandoned.

[706]On January 11, 1982, the demurrers of defendants Erwin and David Marón were sustained without leave to amend and they were awarded costs and attorney’s fees in the sum of $2,375. On the same day the demurrer of Dorothy Marón was sustained with leave to amend. Despite the fact that DDA II had been terminated, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 15, 1982, against Dorothy Marón, the City of Oxnard, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oxnard and the City Council of the City of Oxnard seeking the same relief as set forth in the original complaint. The public agencies sued by the plaintiffs in this action have never appeared. The demurrer of the defendant Dorothy Marón was sustained without leave to amend and she was awarded costs and attorney’s fees in the sum of $6,100. She had previously assigned whatever attorney’s fees she might recover to the redevelopment agency as the agency had provided her with counsel. Appellants contend the trial court erred in the award of attorney’s fees, in its construction of many of the applicable code sections and in not dismissing the action as moot. We disagree with all of plaintiffs’ contentions and affirm the orders sustaining demurrers without leave to amend and the awards of attorneys’ fees.