Aids Healthcare Found. v. City of L. A.
| Decision Date | 14 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | B311144 |
| Citation | 86 Cal.App.5th 322,302 Cal.Rptr.3d 342 |
| Parties | AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Thomas A. Myers, Jonathan M. Eisenberg, Los Angeles, Kirra N. Jones and David M. Gruen for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Scott Marcus, Chief Assistant City Attorney, Blithe S. Bock, Managing Assistant City Attorney, Michael M. Walsh, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents.
This appeal pits the anti-corruption objectives of the Political Reform Act of 1974 (PRA) ( Gov. Code, § 81000 et seq. ) against the desire for certainty in real estate development that animates the 90-day statute of limitations period in Government Code sections 65009 and 66499.37. Appellant AIDS HealthCare Foundation (AHF) challenges land use decisions by the Los Angeles City Council planning and land use management (PLUM) committee, made while two of its members allegedly were the beneficiaries of an extensive, ongoing bribery scheme directed at PLUM committee projects. AHF contends the three-year catch-all statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (a), applies to those PRA claims. Respondents City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles City Council (collectively the City)1 assert that the more specific 90-day statutes of limitation in Government Code sections 65009 and 66499.37 apply.2 In particular, section 65009 governs any action designed to "attack, review, set aside, void, or annul" a wide variety of land use decisions, including "to adopt or amend a general or specific plan," zoning, development agreements, and any conditions attached to variances, conditional use permits, "or any other permit." ( § 65009, subd. (c).) The trial court, following precedent involving a predecessor statute to section 65009, agreed with the City, sustained the City's demurrer without leave to amend, and dismissed the case. We affirm.
The PLUM committee consists of five councilmembers from the 15-member Los Angeles City Council.3 It oversees the Planning Department's development of land use plans and zoning and environmental review laws. The PLUM committee also reviews and votes on proposed real estate projects that seek discretionary approvals. These approvals often require "overruling the usual planning and zoning rules that apply to average residents and small businesses of the City." The PLUM committee holds considerable sway over the hearing of real estate development projects because, after the PLUM committee issues its recommendation to the city council, the clerk puts the item on a "consent-type section" of the meeting. From there, if no councilmember requests the full City Council hold a hearing about the project, the City Council approves the item in a "quick mass vote without public comment." "These votes happen so fast that often times the public attending the hearing does not even realize it has occurred." The chair of the PLUM committee has particular power because the chair exercises control over the committee agenda and "can be a single bottleneck for whether or not a real estate project receives a hearing and goes on to City Council with a positive recommendation."
In 2020 a federal criminal investigation revealed that two former city councilmembers, Jose Huizar and Mitchell Englander, allegedly engaged in bribery and other corruption in connection with their work on the PLUM committee.
Englander sat on the PLUM committee from 2012 until his resignation in October 2018. In January 2020, after a five-year investigation, a federal grand jury indicted Englander for falsifying material facts, making false statements, and witness tampering. The indictment alleged that Englander had accepted tens of thousands of dollars of cash bribes in the bathrooms of a Las Vegas casino, plus additional bribes of hotel rooms and other gifts from a businessman while on trips to Palm Springs and Las Vegas with several people, including a real estate developer. Englander pleaded guilty to federal charges for obstruction of justice.
Huizar sat on the PLUM committee as a member and/or its chair from 2007 until his removal in November 2018. In June 2020 federal law enforcement arrested Huizar on corruption charges, including racketeering, bribery, and money laundering. According to the Los Angeles Times, federal prosecutors alleged that, beginning in 2013, Huizar exploited his position of power on the PLUM committee " ‘to run a team of aid[e]s, consultants and other associates who extracted an enormous amount of cash and campaign donations, multiple casino trips and other personal indulgences from real estate developers.’ " Huizar stands accused of accepting $1.5 million in bribes, gifts, and other inducements from real estate developers "to steer their projects for approval" through the PLUM committee and ultimately the City Council.
Around the same time as Huizar's arrest, the City commenced " ‘revocation proceedings of approvals’ " as to one real estate development project in downtown Los Angeles linked to the criminal charges. Soon, prosecutors identified another project implicated in Huizar's illicit behavior. AHF alleges the corruption taints at least two other projects. In addition, the Los Angeles City Attorney is investigating other real estate development projects with possible ties to the scandal, and other city councilmembers have requested a formal review of such projects. AHF summarizes these events as an "ongoing corruption scandal regarding the approval of real estate projects" in Los Angeles.
On August 4, 2020, nearly two years after either Englander or Huizar last sat on the PLUM committee or took any official act, AHF, a nonprofit organization4 with its headquarters in Los Angeles, filed the instant action against the City. AHF alleged two causes of action: (1) injunctive relief for violation of the PRA, and (2) taxpayer action to prevent waste ( Code Civ. Proc., § 526a ). In the first cause of action, AHF alleged that, if the accusations against Huizar and Englander prove true, their misconduct violated the PRA, "including but not limited [to Government Code] section 87100." AHF further alleged that because both Huizar and Englander sat on the PLUM committee, each had "the ability and influence to approve or disapprove real estate projects." AHF asserted that, pursuant to section 91003, the court is "empowered to ‘restrain the execution of any official action in relation to which such a violation occurred’ " and that "[t]his includes the restraining of permits." AHF thus "seeks an order restraining building permits granted by the City of Los Angeles during" the period of time when Huizar and/or Englander "sat on the PLUM committee and engaged in violations of Government Code Section 81000 with respect to the permits." In its taxpayer waste cause of action, AHF also "seeks an Order restraining the City from utilizing any further taxpayer funds, personnel efforts, or resources with respect to these projects."
AHF prayed for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the City "from taking any further actions or expend[ing] any taxpayer funds to facilitate, review, process, or see to completion any building project approved during" Huizar's and/or Englander's tenure on the PLUM committee "and established to be engaged in violations of Government Code Section 81000 et seq. with respect to the project's approval." AHF also sought permanent injunctive relief "setting aside any project approval" made during Huizar's and/or Englander's time on the PLUM committee where "it is ultimately determined that a violation of Government Code Section 81000 et seq. has occurred and that the project might not otherwise [have] been approved." AHF prayed for its costs and attorneys’ fees.
On September 23, 2020, the City demurred to AHF's complaint, identifying a number of purportedly incurable deficiencies. Central to this appeal, the City sought dismissal on the ground that the 90-day statutes of limitation contained in sections 65009 and 66499.37 barred AHF's claim. The City relied heavily on a factually similar case, Ching v. San Francisco Bd. of Permit Appeals (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 888, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 700 ( Ching ).
AHF opposed the demurrer, primarily by attempting to distinguish Ching factually and legally. AHF asserted the PRA's four-year statute of limitations contained in section 91011, subdivision (b), governed. AHF argued that applying the 90-day time bar applicable to land use permit challenges would constitute "an impermissible amendment of the PRA" and "decimate[ ]" the PRA's "robust enforcement mechanisms" including its "four-year statute of limitations." Counsel for AHF argued at the demurrer hearing that "[u]nder the Political Reform Act, under Government Code section 91011(b), there's an express statute of limitations of four years." AHF also argued that even if the 90-day statute of limitations applied, Huizar's "fraudulent concealment of his criminal acts" tolled the commencement of the limitations period until his June 2020 arrest, making AHF's August complaint timely even under the shorter statute of limitations.
On December 7, 2020, the trial court heard and sustained the City's demurrer without leave to amend, stating that the court "disagree[s] with plaintiff" and "believe[s] that Ching is controlling." The trial court issued its written judgment in favor of the City on December 29, 2020, dismissing AHF's action. AHF timely appealed.
"We independently review the superior court's ruling on a demurrer and determine de novo whether the complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense." ( Ivanoff v. Bank of...
To continue reading
Request your trial