Hazelton v. City of San Diego
| Decision Date | 25 July 1960 |
| Citation | 6 Cal.Rptr. 723,183 Cal.App.2d 131 |
| Parties | Charlotte HAZELTON et al., Petitioner and Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal corporation, Charles C. Dail, Mayor of City of San Diego, Ross Tharp, Dudley D. Williams, Chester N. Schneider, George Kerrigan, Frank E. Curran, and Justin C. Evenson, Councilmen of the City of San Diego; the City of Coronado, a municipal corporation, Beverley M. Harrison, Mayor of City of Coronado, Robin Goodenough, Walter A. Vestal, Lloyd Harmon and Donald Spicer, Councilmen of the City of Coronado, Defendants. Civ. 6170. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
F. James Bear, National City, and Richards, Bartell, Rodgers & Stewart, San Diego, for appellant.
J. F. DuPaul, City Atty., and Alan M. Firestone, Chief Deputy City Atty., San Diego, for respondent City of San Diego.
John R. Goodbody, City Atty., San Diego, for respondent City of Coronado.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered after demurrer to petition was sustained without leave to amend. In her original petition for Writ of Certiorari, petitioner, appellant herein, sued as a citizen and taxpayer, naming the city of San Diego and individual members of the city council as defendants. The petition was filed on December 26, 1958.
The petition alleges: The city of San Diego, a municipal corporation, has attempted to annex to the city a strip consisting of a 'water corridor' in the middle of San Diego Bay, as uninhabited territory; this annexation was completed by filing the approving ordinance with the Secretary of State on September 15, 1954; the territory annexed is a strip six miles long and 600 feet wide, the entire surface of which is water area within the San Diego Bay. (Although the petition alleges the strip to be 600 feet wide, it is conceded in the briefs that the strip as annexed was actually 300 feet wide.) This annexation is hereinafter referred to as the 'Tidelands Annexation'.
Then as uninhabited territory, defendants annexed the Western Salt Company Tract, which annexation was completed on April 25, 1955. This annexation is contiguous to the southernmost end of the Tidelands Annexation. The Western Salt Company annexation consists of about 750 acres within which is located a plant for the extraction of salt. None of the property is owned by the city of San Diego, and the city of San Diego has made no improvement within the area since the annexation. It is then alleged that the purpose of the Tidelands Annexation was to provide 'fictitious contiguity' from the former boundary of the city of San Diego to the Western Salt Company Tract.
It is next alleged that petitioner and others petitioned the attorney general of the state of California for leave to sue in quo warranto to have the annexations declared invalid. The attorney general denied leave to sue on February 3, 1958. A petition for Writ of Mandate was then filed to compel the attorney general to grant leave to sue. This petition was denied by this court on April 29, 1958, and a petition for hearing in the Supreme Court was denied on June 27, 1958.
In her second cuase of action, petitioner realleges the facts pertaining to the Tidelands Annexation, and then alleges that on December 18, 1956, a petition was filed with the city of Imperial Beach for the annexation of certain territory to that city. On January 15, 1957, the city council of Imperial Beach passed a resolution approving the circulation of a petition for the annexation of this territory. On April 2, 1957, a petition signed by qualified electors within the area proposed for annexation was filed with the city, and the city council of Imperial Beach passed a resolution of intention to call a special election for annexation. On April 11, 1957, the city clerk of the city of Imperial Beach found that the signatures on the petition were insufficient. On April 18, 1957, a supplemental petition was filed and the city clerk certified the signatures on the petition and the supplemental petition to be sufficient.
On March 7, 1957, a petition was filed with the city council of the city of San Diego to annex certain territory to the city of San Diego. This annexation is hereinafter referred to as the 'South Bay Annexation'. On March 20, 1957, the city council of San Diego passed a resolution of intention to annex the South Bay area. Approximately one-half of the area included within the South Bay Annexation is within the area of the Imperial Beach annexation. On April 15, 1957, while the Imperial Beach annexation was still pending before the city council of Imperial Beach, the city council of San Diego passed a resolution of intention to call a special election for the annexation of the South Bay area.
The petition therafter alleges serveral reasons, which are legal conclusions and argument, why the San Diego annexations are void.
The city of San Diego demurred to the petition on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained, and the petitioner was given 20 days to amend. The petitioner then filed a document entitled, 'An Amendment to Petition for Writ of Certiorari--Writ of Review'. In this document petitioner alleged 'a further and third cause of action', and named the city of Coronado and its city council as additional defendants. After realleging the facts concerning the Tidelands Annexation, the facts as alleged in the amendment to the petition are as follows: On June 25, 1954, at a special meeting of the city council of the city of Coronado, with three of the five councilmen present, a resolution was passed consenting to the withdrawal of territory from the city of Coronado. The area withdrawn was area included within the Tidelands Annexation. The resolution was passed by a 2 to 1 vote. The members of the Coronado city council did not receive written notice at least three hours before the special meeting, and they did not give their written consent to the meeting. Petitioner then alleges that she is a citizen and taxpayer within the South Bay area and that she is one of several persons subject to illegal texes and assessments levied by the city of San Diego because of these annexation. She again alleges legal conclusions and argument as to why the annexations are void.
It should be noted that petitioner's amendment to the petition for certiorari does not in any way alter or change the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Pleasanton v. Bryant
...the only procedure for testing the validity of an annexation once the proceedings have been completed. (Hazelton v. City of San Diego (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 131, 135, 6 Cal.Rptr. 723; Crowl v. Board of Trustees (1930) 109 Cal.App. 214, 215-217, 292 P. 985; and cf. American Distl. Co. v. City......
-
Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co.
...28 Cal.Rptr. 387; City of Colton v. City of Rialto (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 174, 40 Cal.Rptr. 766; Hazelton v. City of San Diego (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 131, (135), 6 Cal.Rptr. 723; (see also Yorty v. Anderson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 312, 316, 33 Cal.Rptr. 97, 384 P.2d 417).) The following elements are......
-
Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com.
...the definition of the Government Code. (Norlund v. Thorpe, 34 Cal.App.3d 672, 676, 110 Cal.Rptr. 246; see Hazelton v. City of San Diego, 183 Cal.App.2d 131, 135, 6 Cal.Rptr. 723.) Plaintiffs' Defendants contend that none of the plaintiffs has standing to bring this action because each lacks......
-
Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co.
...769-770, 28 Cal.Rptr. 387; City of Colton v. City of Rialto (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 174, 40 Cal.Rptr. 766; Hazelton v. City of San Diego (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 131, 6 Cal.Rptr. 723.) The following elements are prerequisite to de facto corporate status: (1) there must be a charter or general la......