1

Filed 6/14/17

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

MICHAEL COHEN, as Director, etc., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

C076576

(Super. Ct. No. 

34-2013-80001504-CU-WMGDS)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Allen 

Sumner, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Best Best & Krieger, Iris P. Yang and Irene S. Zurko for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Douglas J. Woods, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Marc A. LeForestier and Nancy J. Doig, Deputy 

Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents.

After the Legislature passed the bill to freeze redevelopment activities and 

eventually dissolve redevelopment agencies but before Governor Brown signed it into 

law (Assem. Bill No. 26 (2011-2012 1st Ex. Sess.) enacted as Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess. 

2011-2012, ch. 5 (Assembly Bill 1X 26)), City of Big Bear Lake entered into what it 
2

called a Cooperation Agreement with its soon-to-be-dissolved redevelopment agency. 

Under the Cooperation Agreement, City of Big Bear Lake agreed to complete several 

projects in the city and the former redevelopment agency agreed to pay for the projects. 

On the same day, City of Big Bear Lake (not the former redevelopment agency) entered 

into two contracts with private companies for services related to the projects. The next 

day, Governor Brown signed the Dissolution Law, and it became effective immediately. 

(Id. at § 16.) On the same day Governor Brown signed the law, the former 

redevelopment agency entered into a contract with a private company for services related 

to another project listed in the Cooperation Agreement. Eventually, the former 

redevelopment agency transferred $2.6 million to City of Big Bear Lake to fund the 

contracts mentioned. 

The Dissolution Law1(Assembly Bill 1X 26) immediately froze redevelopment

(taking from redevelopment agencies the authority to create new enforceable obligations)

and provided that only existing enforceable obligations of the former redevelopment 

agency could be paid from the funds held by the redevelopment agency and from future 

tax increment revenue. The law provided that any excess after payment of enforceable 

obligations would be distributed to local taxing entities. Later legislation (Assembly Bill 

1484) declared that certain agreements between local municipal governments and their 

sponsored redevelopment agencies, such as the Cooperation Agreement here, are not 

enforceable obligations. 

In this case, we determine, consistent with the trial court: (1) the contested 

transactions did not create enforceable obligations of the former redevelopment agency, 

(2) the Dissolution Law’s invalidation of sponsor agreements (agreements between a city 

 

1 We refer to the original law dissolving redevelopment agencies (Assembly Bill 

1X 26) as well as later legislation on the subject (Assem. Bill No. 1484 (2011-2012 Reg. 

Sess.) enacted as Stats. 2012, ch. 26, § 6 (Assembly Bill 1484)) as the Dissolution Law.
3

and its former redevelopment agency) does not violate the California Constitution, and 

(3) it is irrelevant that City of Big Bear Lake claims it no longer possesses the funds it 

received from the former redevelopment agency. We also conclude, consistent with our 

decision in City of Bellflower v. Cohen (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 438 (Bellflower), that the 

statutory remedy of offsetting City of Big Bear Lake’s sales, use, and property taxes to 

capture the $2.6 million is unconstitutional. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s 

judgment to the extent it found the proposed sales, use, and property tax offsets 

constitutional. And we affirm the judgment as modified.

BACKGROUND

The Dissolution Law directed redevelopment agencies to continue making 

payments on enforceable obligations (Health & Saf. Code, § 34169, subd. (a))2 but 

prohibited those agencies from incurring additional obligations, freezing all such 

activities (§ 34162, subd. (a)). A primary goal of the Dissolution Law was “to preserve, 

to the maximum extent possible, the revenues and assets of redevelopment agencies so

that those assets and revenues that are not needed to pay for enforceable obligations may 

be used by local governments to fund core governmental services including police and 

fire protection services and schools.” (§ 34167, subd. (a).) The Legislature expressed the 

desire “that redevelopment agencies take no actions that would further deplete the corpus 

of the agencies’ funds regardless of their original source.”

3

 (Ibid.)

On June 27, 2011, the day before the Dissolution Law was signed by Governor 

Brown and became effective, City of Big Bear Lake and its former redevelopment 

agency, knowing about the imminent change of law and the Legislature’s intent, signed 

 

2 Hereafter, unspecified code citations are to the Health and Safety Code.

3 For a summary of the Dissolution Law, see California Redevelopment Assn. v. 

Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231 (Matosantos) and City of Brentwood v. Campbell 

(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 488, 494 (Brentwood).
4

the Cooperation Agreement. The agreement stated that the former redevelopment agency 

“desires to transfer that certain amount of redevelopment tax increment funds, and the 

Bond Proceeds secured with redevelopment tax increment funds . . . to the City, and the 

City desires to accept such funds for the City to acquire land and construct and install 

certain public improvements within the Project Areas.” Under the terms of the 

Cooperation Agreement, the former redevelopment agency agreed to transfer to City of 

Big Bear Lake $23.5 million and the city agreed to undertake specified public 

improvements. 

Also on June 27, 2011, City of Big Bear Lake entered into an agreement with 

Matich Corporation for street and drainage improvements for about $2.5 million. The 

city also had a 2006 agreement with Wireless Consulting – Joseph A. Cylwik (also 

referred to as Cylwik Property Management) to provide engineering services on an asneeded basis. Under this contract, Cylwik Property Management provided services 

related to the Matich Corporation project. 

On June 28, 2011, the day the Dissolution Law and its freeze on the activities of 

redevelopment agencies took effect, the former redevelopment agency entered into an 

agreement with RRM Design Group for professional services related to several projects. 

The former redevelopment agency agreed to pay RRM Design Group about $900,000. 

The Dissolution Law required redevelopment agencies to prepare an Enforceable 

Obligation Payment Schedule (EOPS) listing all of its own enforceable obligations. 

(§ 34169, subds. (g) & (h).) As required by the Dissolution Law, the former 

redevelopment agency prepared its EOPS, listing its enforceable obligations. The EOPS 

included City of Big Bear Lake’s contracts with Matich Corporation and Cylwik Property 

Management and the former redevelopment agency’s contract with RRM Design Group. 

But the EOPS did not list the Cooperation Agreement; nor did it reflect that the former 

redevelopment agency would be transferring $2.6 million to City of Big Bear Lake for

payment on the listed contracts. Department of Finance (DOF) reviewed the EOPS and 
5

requested documentation on the Matich Corporation contract, but DOF did not return the 

EOPS to the former redevelopment agency for reconsideration as allowed by the 

Dissolution Law. (§ 34169, subd. (i).) 

Before the former redevelopment agency was dissolved by operation of law on 

February 1, 2012 (Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 275), the former redevelopment 

agency paid to City of Big Bear Lake $2.6 million and the city paid the money to Matich 

Corporation, Cylwik Property Management, and RRM Design Group. 

When the former redevelopment agency was dissolved, City of Big Bear Lake 

became the successor agency to wind down the affairs of the former redevelopment 

agency. 

After the California Supreme Court decided Matosantos upholding the 

constitutionality of the Dissolution Law, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed 

Assembly Bill 1484, which required an audit of successor agencies to determine whether 

unobligated tax increment revenues were available for transfer to taxing entities. (See 

Assem. Bill No. 1484 (2011-2012 Reg. Sess.) adding Stats. 2012, ch. 26, §§ 17, 40.) 

This “due diligence review” or DDR (§ 34179.5, subd. (a)) identified “[t]he dollar value 

of assets and cash . . . transferred after January 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012, by the 

redevelopment agency or the successor agency to [a sponsoring entity] and the purpose of 

each transfer.” (§ 34179.5, subd. (c)(2).) The amendment to the Dissolution Law 

required the successor agency to submit the results of this audit to the successor agency’s 

oversight board (§34179.6, subd. (c)) and to DOF, which had the authority to adjust any 

amounts in the DDR (§ 34179.6, subd. (d)).

Crucial to this case, Assembly Bill 1484 also modified the definition of

“enforceable obligations” to exclude all agreements between a former redevelopment 

agency and its sponsoring entity (sponsor agreements), with exceptions not relevant to 

this appeal. (§ 34171, subd. (d)(2).) 
6

As required by the Dissolution Law, City of Big Bear Lake, acting as the 

successor agency, obtained a DDR, which listed transfers from the former redevelopment 

agency to City of Big Bear Lake. Included in that list was $2,629,622 for 

“[r]eimbursement to City [of Big Bear Lake] for street capital project expenses.” 

After review of City of Big Bear Lake’s DDR, DOF adjusted the amount available 

for distribution to local taxing entities to include the money paid by the former 

redevelopment agency to the city under the Cooperation Agreement for work performed 

by Matich Corporation, Cylwik Property Management, and RRM Design Group. 

(§ 34171, subd. (d)(2).) 

DOF met and conferred with City of Big Bear Lake but reiterated its position that 

the $2.6 million “was transferred in accordance with an agreement between the City and 

the [former redevelopment agency].” DOF informed City of Big Bear Lake in a letter 

that, if the city did not comply within 30 days, DOF would direct the Board of 

Equalization to withhold sales and use tax from the city. In response, City of Big Bear 

Lake informed DOF that it was not in possession of those funds. 

City of Big Bear Lake, both in its municipal capacity and as successor agency of 

the former redevelopment agency, sought a writ of mandate and declaratory relief against 

DOF and others. As relevant to this appeal, City of Big Bear Lake challenged DOF’s 

determinations that the Cooperation Agreement and the contracts with Matich 

Corporation, Cylwik Property Management, and RRM Design Group did not result in 

enforceable obligations. City of Big Bear Lake also sought a declaration that the 

proposed offset of its sales, use, and property taxes was unconstitutional. 

The trial court entered judgment in favor of DOF and the other defendants. The 

trial court determined:

 The Matich Corporation and Cylwik Property Management contracts were not 

enforceable obligations of the former redevelopment agency because those 
7

contracts were made between City of Big Bear Lake and those private contractors 

and did not involve the former redevelopment agency.

 The contract between RRM Design Group and the former redevelopment agency 

is void because it was entered into after the Dissolution Law freeze went into 

effect.

 The Cooperation Agreement is not an enforceable obligation of the former 

redevelopment agency because it is a sponsor agreement.

 The fact that all payments were made under the Cooperation Agreement before it 

was rendered unenforceable by Assembly Bill 1484 is not dispositive.

 City of Big Bear Lake cannot claim that DOF approved the payments made under 

the Cooperation Agreement to City of Big Bear Lake as part of the EOPS because 

City of Big Bear Lake did not list the Cooperation Agreement in the EOPS.

 DOF’s determinations in this case do not violate Proposition 22 because City of 

Big Bear Lake did not disclose the Cooperation Agreement in its EOPS.

 The Dissolution Law does not violate the contracts clauses of the United States 

and California Constitutions.

 DOF correctly determined that City of Big Bear Lake failed to transfer $2.6 

million for distribution to local taxing entities.

 The validity of the enforcements provisions of the Dissolution Law, allowing the 

state to withhold sales, use, and property taxes, is not ripe for review because the 

funds are no longer in the possession of the City of Big Bear Lake. 

DISCUSSION

Before we turn to City of Big Bear Lake’s arguments on appeal, it is helpful to 

step back and look at the four agreements at issue in this case: (1) the city’s contract with 

Matich Corporation, (2) the city’s contract with Cylwik Property Management, (3) the 

former redevelopment agency’s contract with RRM Design Group, and (4) the 

Cooperation Agreement between the city and the former redevelopment agency. Very 
8

simply, none of these contracts supports an enforceable obligation on the part of the 

former redevelopment agency.

First and second, the former redevelopment agency was not a party to the Matich 

Corporation and Cylwik Property Management contracts. Therefore, those contracts did 

not create an enforceable obligation on the part of the former redevelopment agency.

Third, the former redevelopment agency’s contract with RRM Design Group was 

void under the Dissolution Law because it was entered into after the freeze took effect. 

(§ 34162, subd. (b).) Therefore, the contract did not create an enforceable obligation on 

the part of the redevelopment agency.

And fourth, the Cooperation Agreement was a sponsor agreement (an agreement 

between the former redevelopment agency and its sponsoring agency). Under Assembly 

Bill 1484, such agreements are not enforceable (and there is no statutory exception 

applicable here). (§ 34171, subd. (d)(2).) 

Since none of these four contracts creates a current, enforceable obligation on the 

part of the former redevelopment agency, neither DOF nor the trial court erred in 

determining that $2.6 million of the funds transferred from the former redevelopment 

agency to City of Big Bear Lake were not supported by enforceable obligations. 

Therefore, City of Big Bear Lake must provide $2.6 million for distribution to local 

taxing entities. (§ 34179.5, subd. (a).)

I

Enforceable Obligations

City of Big Bear Lake makes three arguments that the agreements entered into by 

the former redevelopment agency must be viewed as enforceable obligations of the 

former redevelopment agency under the Dissolution Law. It argues: (1) any agreement

must be viewed as an enforceable obligation if it was enforceable when the transfers of 

funds were made, (2) the RRM Design Group contract was not affected by the freeze 

component of the Dissolution Law even though the contract was not signed until the 
9

freeze had taken effect, and (3) DOF tacitly approved the transfers by the former 

redevelopment agency by not objecting to them. None of these arguments has merit.

A. Enforceability of Agreements that were Enforceable When Funds 

Transferred

City of Big Bear Lake contends that the Cooperation Agreement was an 

enforceable obligation because, at the time the city and former redevelopment agency 

entered into and fulfilled the obligations under the contract, it was an enforceable 

obligation under the Dissolution Law. The premise of City of Big Bear Lake’s argument 

is that, if the sponsor agreement created an enforceable obligation when it was entered 

into and executed, the Legislature either did not or cannot reach back and make the 

obligation unenforceable. For this proposition, City of Big Bear Lake offers no authority. 

(See Okasaki v. City of Elk Grove (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1045, fn. 1 [plaintiffs’

contention in opening brief forfeited for failure to provide authority].) And in any event 

the premise is false. The Legislature could and did retroactively invalidate sponsor 

agreements entered into before the Dissolution Law was passed. (See Brentwood, supra,

237 Cal.App.4th at pp. 496-500.)

B. Enforceability of Contract between Former Redevelopment Agency and 

RRM Design Group

City of Big Bear Lake also contends that the contract entered into between the 

former redevelopment agency and RRM Design Group is an enforceable obligation 

because, even though it was signed on June 28, 2011, the day that the freeze under the 

Dissolution Law took effect, it was approved by the former redevelopment agency the 

day before, on June 27, 2011. This contention also fails because the contract was signed 

after the freeze took effect and therefore it did not create an enforceable obligation.

But City of Big Bear Lake complains that the former redevelopment agency was 

“bound by the RRM Contract once the [former redevelopment agency’s] governing board 

approved it on June 27, 2011. The actual execution of the contract was a ministerial act 
10

. . . .” Even assuming for the purpose of argument that the former redevelopment agency 

staff had the ministerial duty to sign the contract (which is dubious because it no longer 

had the authority to do so on June 28, 2011), RRM Design Group was under no such duty

and did not sign the contract until June 28, 2011. In other words, no potentially binding 

contract existed until RRM Design Group signed it June 28, 2011. No binding contract 

existed before the freeze took effect. The general rule is that a contract is not binding 

until both parties sign it. (Sparks v. Mauk (1915) 170 Cal. 122, 123.) We see no reason 

in this case to deviate from the general rule. Therefore, since no binding contract (and, 

hence, no enforceable obligation) existed before the freeze took effect, the freeze 

prevented the formation of a binding contract. (§ 34162, subd. (b).)

C. Tacit Approval by DOF

Under the Dissolution Law, the former redevelopment agency was directed to 

continue to meet its enforceable obligations until it was dissolved. (§ 34169, subd. (a).) 

In connection with this requirement, the Legislature directed the former redevelopment 

agency to list its enforceable obligations. (§ 34169, subd. (g).)

The former redevelopment agency listed the contracts with the private contractors

in its EOPS (§ 34169, subd. (g)), which it approved on August 22, 2011, reflecting the 

allegedly enforceable obligations of the former redevelopment agency through December 

31, 2011. While DOF had the statutory authority to return the EOPS to the former 

redevelopment agency for reconsideration (§ 34169, subd. (i)), it did not. The EOPS 

listed the contracts with (1) Matich Corporation, (2) Cylwik Property Management, and 

(3) RRM Design Group, even though two of the companies (Matich and Cylwik) entered 

into contracts with the city and not with the former redevelopment agency and the other 

contract (with RRM Design Group) was void. (The former redevelopment agency was 

supposed to list its own obligations in the EOPS, not those of the city (§ 34169.)) The 

former redevelopment agency did not list the sponsor agreement (Cooperation 

Agreement) in the EOPS. Before its dissolution, the former redevelopment agency made 
11

the transfers listed in the EOPS, including the transfers disputed in this case, to City of 

Big Bear Lake (not to the contractors). 

On appeal, City of Big Bear Lake asserts: “DOF tacitly approved the [former 

redevelopment agency’s] transfers to the City and those transfers were valid.” While the 

city discusses the statutes concerning the EOPS and the duty to pay enforceable 

obligations, it offers no authority for the proposition that this asserted tacit approval made 

those alleged obligations enforceable, even though they were not enforceable under the 

Dissolution Law. Specifically, the transfers to City of Big Bear Lake under the 

Cooperation Agreement for payments to Matich Corporation, Cylwik Property 

Management, and RRM Design Group were unenforceable because the payments were 

made to satisfy a sponsor agreement. Also, the agreement with RRM Design Group was 

not an enforceable obligation because the contract was signed after the freeze went into 

effect. These were not enforceable obligations, and “tacit approval” did not turn them 

into enforceable obligations.4

II

Proposition 22

City of Big Bear Lake contends that the Dissolution Law violates Proposition 22 

(2010), which generally prohibits the state from redirecting a redevelopment agency’s tax 

increment revenue. (Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 25.5, subd. (a)(7).)5 The city argues that the 

 

4 City of Big Bear Lake does not assert that DOF is equitably estopped from 

determining that the Cooperation Agreement was not an enforceable obligation. We 

therefore do not discuss that issue. 

5 The constitutional provision on which City of Big Bear Lake relies prohibits the 

state from “[r]equir[ing] a community redevelopment agency (A) to pay, remit, loan, or 

otherwise transfer, directly or indirectly, taxes on ad valorem real property and tangible 

personal property allocated to the agency pursuant to Section 16 of Article XVI to or for 

the benefit of the State, any agency of the State, or any jurisdiction; or (B) to use, restrict, 
12

constitutional provision precludes DOF from invalidating payments that were valid when 

they were made. As noted above, the trial court rejected this argument because the city 

did not include the Cooperation Agreement in its EOPS. But the city claims it was 

justified in not listing the Cooperation Agreement because it listed the “ultimate 

recipients”—Matich Corporation, Cylwik Property Management, and RRM Design 

Group—in the EOPS. After City of Big Bear Lake filed its opening brief, we held in 

Brentwood that retroactive invalidation of sponsor agreements does not violate 

Proposition 22.

Before we reach the constitutional issue, we agree with the trial court that City of 

Big Bear Lake did not preserve this issue of whether the Dissolution Law violates 

Proposition 22 under the facts of this case because the city did not include the 

Cooperation Agreement in its EOPS. As the trial court reasoned, “[w]hatever merit[] this 

argument may have for payments valid[ly] made prior to the [redevelopment agency’s] 

dissolution, the failure to properly disclose the payments on the EOPS invalidated the 

payments. There is thus no Proposition 22 violation.” Listing the “ultimate recipients,” 

as City of Big Bear Lake characterizes it, did not meet the requirement of the statute to 

list the “enforceable obligations.”

In any event, as we held in Brentwood, the retroactive invalidation of the 

payments made under the Cooperation Agreement before the former redevelopment 

agency was dissolved did not violate Proposition 22, even if the payments were made 

when the sponsor agreement was enforceable. (Brentwood, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at pp. 

496-500.)

City of Big Bear Lake claims that Brentwood is distinguishable. It argues: “Here, 

all of the payments were made under the Cooperation Agreement during the ‘freeze’ 

 

or assign a particular purpose for such taxes for the benefit of the State, any agency of the 

State, or any jurisdiction . . . .” (Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 25.5, subd. (a)(7).)
13

period, and were listed on the [former redevelopment agency’s] EOPS, which DOF did 

not disapprove.” We need not pause long on this argument that Brentwood is 

distinguishable because it is based on an unpersuasive argument concerning the facts. 

Here, the disputed payments were not made to the outside contractors listed on the EOPS; 

instead, the payments were made to City of Big Bear Lake under the Cooperation 

Agreement, which was not disclosed on the EOPS. There is no merit or reason to City of 

Big Bear Lake’s argument that it was sufficient to list the contracts with the outside 

contractors in the EOPS because those contracts did not create enforceable obligations on 

the part of the former redevelopment agency, which is borne out by the fact that the 

former redevelopment agency made payments to the city, not to those outside contractors. 

Since the foundation of City of Big Bear Lake’s attempt to distinguish Brentwood is 

unsupportable, we need not undertake a further comparison of the two cases.

III

Possession of Funds

City of Big Bear Lake contends that, because the city has already spent the money 

received from the former redevelopment agency, there are no “unobligated balances 

available for transfer to taxing entities.” (§ 34179.5, subd. (a).) We see no relevance to 

this argument. It does not justify City of Big Bear Lake’s refusal to turn over funds that 

must be turned over under the Dissolution Law.

Section 34179.5, subdivision (a) directs “each successor agency [to] employ a 

licensed accountant, approved by the county auditor-controller and with experience and 

expertise in local government accounting, to conduct a due diligence review to determine 

the unobligated balances available for transfer to taxing entities.” This provision does not 

require the licensed accountant to determine (1) whether City of Big Bear Lake has spent 

the money received from the former redevelopment agency or (2) what is in City of Big 

Bear Lake’s coffers; instead, it requires the licensed accountant to apply the Dissolution 

Law, analyze the transactions, and do the math to determine how much money the city 
14

must turn over. Section 34179.5 provides the process, but it does not require the licensed 

accountant to determine whether the city possesses the funds. City of Big Bear Lake 

establishes neither by the language of the statute nor by any other authority that it cannot 

be ordered to turn over funds for distribution to taxing entities just because it has already 

spent the money it received from the former redevelopment agency. 

To reiterate, the former redevelopment agency had no obligation with respect to 

the Matich Corporation, Cylwik Property Management, and RRM Design Group 

contracts. Therefore, the fact that City of Big Bear Lake paid on those contracts cannot 

be attributed to any obligation of the former redevelopment agency.

City of Big Bear Lake argues that it cannot recover the funds from the private 

companies that received payment for their services. Again, the city does not explain how 

this is relevant to the inquiry required by section 34179.5. 

City of Big Bear Lake’s argument that it no longer possesses the funds received 

from the former redevelopment agency does not justify refusal to turn over $2.6 million

for distribution to taxing entities under the Dissolution Law.

IV

Sales, Use, and Property Tax Offsets

In its correspondence with City of Big Bear Lake, DOF stated that it, if the city did 

not turn over funds identified by DOF to be distributed to taxing entities, then the state 

would capture those funds by offsetting sales, use, and property tax revenues to which the 

city was entitled.6 (§ 34179.6, subd. (h).) The trial court concluded that the issue was 

not ripe for review. City of Big Bear Lake raises the issue again on appeal. Since 

 

6 We recognize that the trial court declined to address this issue, opining that it was 

not ripe for review. Since we have directly addressed this issue in Bellflower and since 

the state notified City of Big Bear Lake, at least initially, that it would invoke that 

remedy, we address it here.
15

briefing was completed on this case, we decided Bellflower, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th 438,

in which we held that the proposed offsets under section 34179.6, subdivision (h) would 

violate Proposition 22 (2010). We therefore must modify the trial court’s judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to prohibit the state from using the remedies in section 

34179.6, subdivision (h) to capture funds by offsetting sales, use, or property taxes to 

which City of Big Bear Lake is entitled. With that modification, the judgment is 

affirmed. DOF is awarded its costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)

 NICHOLSON , J.

We concur:

 BLEASE , Acting P. J.

 ROBIE , J.