AIDS HealthCare Foundation v. City of Los Angeles, 86 Cal.App.5th 322

Background

The PLUM committee (five-city-council members) reviews and recommends discretionary land‑use and permit approvals; its recommendations often go to City Council on consent with little public scrutiny.
Federal investigations revealed alleged bribery and corruption by two former PLUM members, Councilmembers Jose Huizar and Mitchell Englander, accused of steering developer projects in exchange for bribes and gifts.
AHF sued the City under the Political Reform Act (PRA) and as a taxpayer, seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to restrain or set aside building permits and stop City expenditure on projects allegedly approved due to PRA violations by Huizar/Englander. The complaint covered permits approved during their PLUM tenure (over an extended period).
The City demurred, arguing AHF’s claims are time‑barred by the 90‑day limitations period for land‑use challenges in Gov. Code § 65009 (and similar § 66499.37), citing Ching v. San Francisco Bd. of Permit Appeals.
The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding § 65009’s 90‑day bar applies and preempts longer PRA or general limitation periods for these kinds of challenges.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which statute of limitations applies to AHF’s PRA-based challenge to permits?	PRA (Gov. Code § 91011(b)) or CCP § 338(a) (four- or three‑year limits) govern.	The specific 90‑day land‑use limitation (§ 65009; § 66499.37) controls.	90‑day statute (§ 65009) applies; longer PRA/general periods preempted.
Is the gravamen of the suit an attack on permits (triggering § 65009) or a standalone corruption claim?	The suit principally alleges corruption under the PRA; relief seeks remedies for misconduct, not primarily to undo permits.	Regardless of framing, the complaint’s core attacks PLUM permit approvals; § 65009 governs challenges to such decisions.	Gravamen is an attack/review of land‑use decisions; § 65009 governs.
Does applying § 65009 to a PRA claim unconstitutionally amend the voter‑enacted PRA?	Yes — applying the 90‑day bar would effectively curtail PRA enforcement enacted by initiative.	No — § 65009 predates the PRA and addresses a distinct, specific subject; it does not improperly amend or conflict with the PRA.	No constitutional problem; § 65009 predates PRA and is a valid, specific limitation that controls.
Should equitable tolling / fraudulent concealment excuse AHF’s delay?	Tolling for fraudulent concealment (Huizar/Englander’s misconduct concealed) would make the claim timely.	Plaintiff forfeited tolling argument on appeal and failed to plead facts to support tolling.	Court did not consider tolling on appeal (issue forfeited); dismissal affirmed without leave to amend.

Key Cases Cited

Ching v. San Francisco Bd. of Permit Appeals, 60 Cal.App.4th 888 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (90‑day local land‑use statute preempts longer PRA or general limitations where challenge attacks permit/land‑use decision)
Hensler v. City of Glendale, 8 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994) (gravamen of the complaint determines applicable statute of limitations)
Presenting Jamul v. Board of Supervisors, 231 Cal.App.3d 665 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (broad subsection 90‑day limitations govern all subdivision‑related challenges)
California Standardbred Sires Stakes Com. v. California Horse Racing Bd., 231 Cal.App.3d 751 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (short statutory limitations period applies to PRA‑based conflict claims when challenge targets agency action)
Freeman v. City of Beverly Hills, 27 Cal.App.4th 892 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (monetary‑damages claim that attacks zoning decision is nonetheless governed by short land‑use limitations)
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 79 Cal.App.4th 242 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (§ 65009 time bar precludes challenges even when asserting constitutional defects)
People v. Kelly, 47 Cal.4th 1008 (Cal. 2010) (analysis of when the Legislature may amend initiative statutes)