Smith v. City of Los Angeles

• Decision Date: 15 March 1961
• Citation: 11 Cal.Rptr. 898,190 Cal.App.2d 112
• Parties: Frank SMITH and Charles Hopper, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 24834.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 898

11 Cal.Rptr. 898

190 Cal.App.2d 112

Frank SMITH and Charles Hopper, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 24834.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

March 15, 1961.

Hearing Denied May 10, 1961.

Arthur E. Briggs, Los Angeles, for appellants.

Joe Crider, Jr., O'Melveny & Myers, Pierce Works, and Rodney K. Potter, Los Angeles, for respondent, Los Angeles Dodgers, Inc.

Roger Arnebergh, City Atty., Bourke Jones, Asst. City Atty., and Milton N. Sherman, Deputy City Atty., Los Angeles, for respondent, City of Los Angeles.

WOOD, Presiding Justice.

Plaintiffs, as taxpayers and citizens of the city of Los Angeles, sought by their complaint: (1) to enjoin the city from transferring 27.67 acres of Elysian Park to defendant Los Angeles Dodgers, Inc., and (2) to obtain a declaration that Resolution No. 2250 of the Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners of Los Angeles and that Ordinance No. 113.933 of Los Angeles (relative to said land) are invalid. Defendants' motion for a summary judgment was granted. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment.

The complaint alleged, as a first cause of action, that on October 7, 1957, the city council of Los Angeles passed Ordinance No. 110,204 (attached to complaint) approving and authorizing the execution of a contract between the city of Los Angeles and the defendant Los Angeles Dodgers, Inc., a baseball club; by the terms of the contract the city agreed to convey to the baseball club approximately 300 acres of land, including 27.67 acres of Elysian Park particularly described in Resolution No. 2250 of the Board of Park Commissioners adopted on September 26, 1957; said park had been forever dedicated as a public park; it is provided in section 170 of Article XVI of the Charter of Los Angeles that the Board of Park Commissioners shall have control of all parks and no part of a park shall be devoted to any other purpose without permission of the park board, and such park land may be excepted from the charter provisions only where a portion of park land has been removed from the jurisdiction of the park board by reason of the use of the land for public purposes incompatible with park use, and such exception may be made only if (1) the park board and city council determine that such remaining land is unsuitable for further use as a public park, and (2) land of equal area to the unsuitable park land is acquired in the same portion of the city and is dedicated as a public park; in violation of said Charter and by abuse of discretion and in bad faith, the park board by their Resolution No. 2250 and the city council by its Ordinance No. 113,933, passed June 26, 1959, did, contrary to fact, declare that use of a part of Elysian Park for freeway and highway purposes caused 27.67 acres (Parcel A) of the park to be unsuitable for further use as a public park, and that other land (Parcel B as described in the resolution) is land of equal area to the land in Parcel A (27.67 acres); that Parcel A is the 27.67 acres described in the contract between the city and the baseball club; contrary to the declaration in Resolution 2250 and Ordinance 113,933, the use of a portion of Elysian Park for a state highway was compatible with park uses in that the park board did on November 14, 1940, authorize the opening of the highway through Elysian Park and declared in a resolution that the authorization was to improve the usefulness of the remaining 27.67 acres; thereafter, on April 1, 1943, the city council passed an ordinance authorizing the opening of a public street through said park; the dedication of Parcel B, described in Resolution 2250 and Ordinance 113,933, does not comply with said Charter requirement, (regarding obtaining other land of equal area in the same portion of the city for park purposes) in that Parcel B is not in the same portion of the city as Parcel A (the 27.67 acres) and Parcel B is not equal area to Parcel A and was not acquired for park purposes but was unused land previously owned by the city; Parcel A (27.67 acres) has a distinct and unique character as park land in that in 1932 it was dedicated as a Washington Memorial Grove, and further said parcel is the only high point of land that has a full view of the city center and the part of the city south of the Santa Monica Mountains; there is no other similar and available site for a park in the same portion of the city; the defendants, conspiring with each other, intend to and will, unless restrained by the court, cause said 27.67 acres to be transferred and conveyed to other than park purposes and to be transferred and conveyed to said baseball club as expressed in Resolution 2250 and Ordinance 113,933, and in violation of said Charter and without authority and in had faith and abuse of discretion.

As a second cause of action, the complaint alleged that an actual controversy exists 'between the parties' to this action concerning the right of the defendants to divert the 27.67 acres of Elysian Park from park purposes and to transfer and convey that land to the baseball club in that the plaintiffs contend: that the defendants are without authority to so transfer or convey said land; that Resolution 2250 and Ordinance 113,933 are invalid and forbidden by the Charter of the city and the Constitution of the state; that the removal of a portion of the park for a highway did not render the remaining 27.67 acres of park land incompatible with park use; the land in Parcel B is not land of equal area to Parcel A and is not in the same portion of the city as Parcel A; the park board and city council have not made a valid determination with respect to Parcel B, but in bad faith and abuse of discretion have falsely determined as to the facts required by section 170, subdivision (d) of the Charter; that the defendants dispute and contest the contentions of plaintiffs.

The prayer of the complaint is that the defendants be restrained and enjoined from executing any contract to transfer or convey said 27.67 acres from park purposes; that the court declare whether the contract set forth in Ordinance 110,204 would be a valid contract for the conveyance of said 27.67 acres; that the court declare whether the determination of the park board in Resolution 2250 and the determination of the city council in Ordinance 113,933 are sufficient to comply with the requirements of the Charter.

The defendants city, councilmen, mayor, and members of the park board made a motion for summary judgment under the provision of section 437c of the Code of Civil Procedure. The motion was based upon the defense of res judicata--that three prior cases involving the validity of the contract were conclusive determinations against the claims made by plaintiffs herein. The affidavit of Mr. Weldon L. Weber, Deputy City Attorney, in support of that motion, stated in substance as follows: On September 23, 1957, action No. 687210, entitled Ruben et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al., was filed in the superior court of Los Angeles County; those plaintiffs alleged in their amended complaint that they were citizens and taxpayers of Los Angeles, and they made the allegations on behalf of themselves and all other citizens and taxpayers of Los Angeles; they also alleged that on September 30, 1957, the city council of Los Angeles passed Ordinance 110,204 which is attached to the complaint, and which ordinance and 'contract therein' have been accepted by said baseball club; they also alleged that approximately 300 acres in the Chavez Ravine area 'contemplated to be conveyed under said ordinance' included approximately 27.67 acres of Elysian Park, and that the conveyance to the baseball club is not for a public use and is void; the prayer of the amended complaint was that the court declare to be invalid the said ordinance, contract, and all conveyances of land made thereunder; thereafter, in an amendment to the amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged in part that an ordinance referred to was Ordinance 110,204, and that the city is trying to purchase approximately 27.67 acres of land in Elysian Park which land is managed by the park board pursuant to Article XVI of the Charter, and that the purpose of making the purchase is to convey the land pursuant to said ordinance for the sole benefit of the baseball club. The affidavit also recited that the pre-trial statement, entered into by the parties, stated as follows: that Ordinance 110,204 was passed by the city council and approved by the mayor on October 8, 1957, and the operation of the ordinance was delayed until a referendary vote thereon was had on June 3, 1958, wherein the vote was in favor of the ordinance; that the approximately 300 acres to be conveyed under the ordinance included 27.67 acres of Elysian Park property. The affidavit also recited that the Points and Authorities filed by plaintiff Ruben, at the trial, stated that section 170, subdivision (3), of the Charter provided that all lands set apart as a public park shall forever remain for public use; and plaintiffs do not find that the sale of park property under the ordinance is permitted by any exception to said section 170. The affidavit also stated that at the trial of said action the defendants introduced in evidence a copy of the council minutes wherein it was said that Resolution 2250, adopted by the park board, refers to a finding of the board concerning approximately 27 acres in Elysian Park within the area to be developed for baseball. It was stated further in the affidavit: that the trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and in the memorandum decision of the trial court it was said that plaintiff contends that the city cannot sell park property to a private corporation; that the park property involved in this transaction is a part of Elysian Park and there is no evidence in this case with respect to the manner of...