Comunidad en Accion v. Los Angeles City Council
219 Cal. App. 4th 1116
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Comunidad en Acción (Comunidad) sues the City of Los Angeles over siting of three waste facilities in Sun Valley under Gov. Code §11135 and CEQA; City approved EIR and Waste Management expansion May 11, 2010.
- CEQA claims dismissed for late hearing request; Comunidad sought discretionary relief under CCP §473 which the trial court denied.
- 11135 claim premised on alleged state funding of a City program; supervision and input by the LEA are central to the issue.
- LEA receives state funding and is part of CalRecycle’s framework; the LEA’s input occurred on some permit-related matters but not the challenged land-use approvals.
- Court’s disposition: CEQA claims reversed; §11135 claim affirming summary adjudication; each party bears own costs on appeal.
- Key factual point: the LEA’s role and its funding are separate from the City’s land-use approvals, shaping the §11135 analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LEA funding makes the City’s program state-funded | Comunidad argues LEA funding ties City waste program to state funds | City contends LEA is separate; state funds to LEA do not render City program state-funded | No triable issue; LEA funding to LEA does not make City land-use actions a state-funded program. |
| Whether LEA is a separate entity for §11135 purposes | Lea is functionally separate from City; funding flows to LEA | LEA is integrated with City; CEQA No Wetlands distinction not controlling | LEA is not sufficiently distinct from City to defeat §11135 applicability. |
| Whether the 90-day hearing request deadline under CEQA was excusable neglect | Counsel’s calendaring error, coupled with illness, constitutes excusable neglect | Missed deadline due to counsel’s error; discretionary relief should be denied | Trial court abused its discretion; relief under CCP §473 should be granted. |
| Whether CEQA relief affects the Court’s handling of CEQA claims | Relief preserves merits-based adjudication | Relief undermines expedited CEQA review | CEQA claims reversed (relief granted), while §11135 adjudication affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nilsson v. City of Los Angeles, 249 Cal.App.2d 976 (Cal.App.2d 1967) (calendar error excusable where timely relief sought)
- Elston v. City of Turlock, 38 Cal.3d 227 (Cal. 1985) (liberal relief from default when diligent and no prejudice)
- Haviland v. Southern California Edison Co., 172 Cal. 601 (Cal. 1916) (calendar entry error can justify relief under §473)
- No Wetlands Landfill Expansion v. County of Marin, 204 Cal.App.4th 573 (Cal.App.4th 2012) (LEA/CEQA context; LEA as separate entity under CEQA review)
- Miller v. City of Hermosa Beach, 13 Cal.App.4th 1118 (Cal.App.4th 1993) (excusable neglect under §473 when timely relief sought)
- Huh v. Wang, 158 Cal.App.4th 1406 (Cal.App.4th 2007) (calendar mistakes not always excusable unless context supports)
- Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc., 28 Cal.4th 249 (Cal. 2002) (excusable neglect; timely motion; prejudice considerations)
- Garcia v. Hejmadi, 58 Cal.App.4th 674 (Cal.App.4th 1997) (calendar-related mistakes; reasonable care standards)