La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Ass'n of Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles
2 Cal. App. 5th 586
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Target sought eight exceptions to the Vermont/Western Transit Oriented District Specific Plan/Station Neighborhood Area Plan (SNAP) to build a 75-foot commercial store at Sunset Blvd. & Western Ave.; SNAP generally limited commercial buildings to 35 feet.
- Two citizen groups (La Mirada Ave. Neighborhood Assn. of Hollywood and Citizens Coalition of Los Angeles) petitioned for writs of mandate challenging the City’s grant of Target’s exceptions.
- The superior court granted relief in part: it invalidated six of Target’s eight SNAP exceptions (including the height exception), upheld two exceptions (including additional parking), found no CEQA, due process, or Brown Act violations, and ordered cessation of construction.
- Target appealed and concurrently requested the City amend SNAP to eliminate the need for the exceptions; the City later approved amendments that would allow Target’s project without relying on the invalidated exceptions.
- After the City’s final approval of SNAP amendments, the Court of Appeal held the appeals and cross-appeal moot and dismissed them, leaving any modification of the superior court’s writ (including the construction stop) for the trial court to address first.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeals challenging City’s grant of SNAP exceptions remain justiciable after City amended SNAP | Appeals raise continuing public interest and recurring legal questions; court should decide merits or preserve injunction against construction | City’s amendment rendered the exception issues moot; dismissal appropriate because amendments remove contested relief | Appeals dismissed as moot; because appellant (Target) prompted amendment, court did not vacate trial judgment and left enforcement/writ modification to trial court |
| Proper appellate remedy when administrative change moots an appeal | Appellant urged merits decision despite mootness due to public importance | Defendant argued standard mootness dismissal applies; where appellant caused mootness, dismissal (not vacatur) is proper | Where losing party caused mootness, appeals dismissed rather than reversing or vacating trial court judgment |
| Whether appellate court can grant effective relief after plan amendment | Plaintiffs argued relief still needed (e.g., construction stay) | Defendants argued amendments obviate need for appellate remedy regarding exceptions | Court concluded it could not grant effective relief on the exception issues and dismissed appeals as moot |
| Allocation of further proceedings regarding trial court writ and construction halt | Plaintiffs sought continued construction stay and appellate resolution | Defendants argued those matters belong first to the superior court in light of the new SNAP | Court left any modification or enforcement of the writ (including construction cessation) to the superior court to consider first |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockaway Storage v. County of Alameda, 216 Cal.App.4th 161 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (mootness when events prevent effective appellate relief)
- Paul v. Milk Depots, Inc., 62 Cal.2d 129 (Cal. 1964) (when subsequent action eliminates controversy, appellate courts may reverse and remand to dismiss rather than imply affirmance)
- Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa, 198 Cal.App.4th 939 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (administrative change can moot appeals; remand/dismissal procedures)
- Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. v. Western Conference of Teamsters, 686 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1982) (when appellant causes mootness, dismissal rather than vacatur is appropriate)
- Allard v. DeLorean, 884 F.2d 464 (9th Cir. 1989) (dissatisfied litigant should not erase adverse judgment by making appeal moot)
- Cammermeyer v. Perry, 97 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 1995) (declining to vacate lower court judgment mooted by replacement regulation; consider equities on remand)