Murphy v. City of Sierra Madre CA2/2

Filed 3/28/13 Murphy v. City of Sierra Madre CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

DEANNA MURPHY et al., B241246

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GC047726) v.

CITY OF SIERRA MADRE,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order and judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Joseph DeVanon, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Sanford L. Horn, Sanford L. Horn for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Colantuono & Levin, Teresa Highsmith, Sandra Levin, Tiana J. Murillo for Defendant and Respondent.

___________________________________________________

For many years, plaintiffs unknowingly paid the electricity bill on a city-owned parking lot. After discovering the error, they sued the city who owned the lot. We find that plaintiffs have failed to state a proper cause of action against the city and have not demonstrated how they can adequately amend their complaint to allege a viable cause of action. We therefore affirm the order sustaining the city’s demurrer without leave to amend and the related judgment. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Deanna and Don Murphy’s first amended complaint (FAC) alleges that they purchased real property in the City of Sierra Madre (the City, or defendant) in 1985. The FAC states that plaintiffs purchased the property from a party who originally purchased the property from the City pursuant to a Disposition Development Agreement. The sale of the property to plaintiffs was approved by the city council, which imposed terms and conditions for development of the property. According to the FAC, the sale was consummated by means of an escrow agreement which expressly and impliedly called for proration of certain costs and expenses, and “should have but failed to include an express provision for transfer of the utilities.” When the City transferred utilities for the property, it incorrectly transferred an adjacent electrical meter that serviced a City- owned parking lot, resulting in plaintiffs being charged for the electricity used for the parking lot. Plaintiffs contend that the failure to properly transfer utilities was a breach of the “sales contract.” From 1985 until December 2010, around the time they discovered the error, plaintiffs paid for the parking lot’s electricity. Plaintiffs allege that the City appropriated their money for the benefit of the City and the citizens of the community. Plaintiffs duly filed a verified claim against the City for damages, which was rejected by the City in May 2011. The FAC further alleges that the City authorized its employees to contract with the Edison Company (Edison) to furnish electricity to the City’s property, including the parking lot, and that this authority did not require a contract in writing, the signature of the mayor, or the approval of the city council.