Source: https://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=B283740&s=CA&d=121680
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:16:53+00:00

Document:
finding that Pomona violated a duty to comply with Prop. L.
entitlement to attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s rulings.
Respondents’ motion for sanctions is denied.
development agreement with the city.
1993; it took effect 30 days later, on June 24, 1993.
the right to select counsel to do so.
entered into their agreement, citizens of Pomona approved Prop.
recommended that the city council entertain the proposal.
Structures, “violates both the intent and the spirit” of Prop. L.
2012 discussion about extending the agreement.
states that the city council “approved” the ordinance.
had placed pursuant to the agreement.
introduced Ordinance No. 4190 for second reading and adoption.
address the CEQA claim in their briefing.
caption had been a mistake.
2017, and notice of entry of judgment was filed on May 11, 2017.
complexity of the case, their complete victory, and other factors.
and that a multiplier was unwarranted.
challenging both the judgment and the award of attorney’s fees.
standing to pursue this action.
than that of a citizen who wants the law enforced.” (McDonald v.
petitioner to a sharper showing of personal need.” (McDonald v.
Stockton Metropolitan Transit District, supra, 36 Cal.App.3d at p.
interest as a result of Pomona’s adoption of Ordinance No. 4190.
alone give rise to a beneficial interest.
that conclusion was erroneous for two reasons.
project to a competitor. (See SJJC, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at pp.
competitor’s proposal] would be in the public interest.” (Id. at p.
individual members. (Ibid.) Those principles do not help here.
requires any members of Citizens to participate in the suit.
Price and Citizens had public interest standing to sue.
order that he be made a party.
the party is indispensable under subdivision (b). (Deltakeeper v.
must be steeped in “pragmatic considerations.”’ [Citation.]” (Id.
weighed against deeming Regency an indispensable party.
and the City shall cooperate in defending any such action.’ . . .
‘Developer shall defend City . . . from any legal actions . . .
reiterate rather than reproduce its prior analysis.
to the City Attorney’s Office serving as counsel for the City.
right to review and approve all court filings filed on its behalf.
respective counsel independently of the other party.
480, which the trial court distinguished.
resulting from, or in connection with any project approvals. . . .
will adequately represent the payor’s interest in [the] litigation.
supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at p. 1104; cf. Sierra Club, Inc. v.
an interest in the validity of an agreement to which it is a party.
vigorously to argue in favor of” upholding the contract.
or is exerting over the litigation.
representation by the named parties.” (County of Imperial v.
their interests do not align.
Cal.App.4th at p. 35.) We accordingly are not persuaded.
to the dictates of their own judgment.’ [ Citations.]” (Id. at pp.
amend the 1993 agreement. We disagree.
subject to the provisions of Government Code section 65867.5.
the billboards remained, and Pomona adopted Ordinance No.
Cal.App.4th 323, 325-327.) Pomona abdicated that duty here.
a matter of contract law.” We reject this argument.
can be done without violating the intention of the parties.” (Civ.
§ 954.) A contract that is terminated ceases to bind the parties.
contracts are determined by the totality of the circumstances.
the undisputed facts can support only one reasonable conclusion.
supported by the facts of this case.
requisite necessity and financial burden of public enforcement.
(b) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement . . .
sufficient basis for awarding fees.
Here, the first quotation from Woodland Hills is inapposite.
gained was significant and widespread.
“nonspecific and conclusory” to support the award. We disagree.
Cal.App.4th 498 (Arnold). We are not persuaded.
is of no moment, as their efforts were unsuccessful.
California Exposition had entered with one of his competitors.
finding that neither stood to gain from the suit.
earned while operating its billboards.
basis in the record. The motion accordingly is denied.
Outcome: The judgment and order of the trial court are affirmed. Respondents’ motion for sanctions is denied. Respondents are awarded their costs on appeal.

References: v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

§ 954