Peters v. City of Beaumont CA4/2
E075845
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 14, 2022Background
- Peters owned Pioneer Mobile Village, a mobile home park in Beaumont.
- In 2011 the City refused to reissue Peters an operating permit; in 2012 water to the park was cut off after Peters failed to pay the Water District.
- The City adopted an emergency resolution under the Emergency Services Act to collect resident utility payments into a special fund and pay the Water District directly.
- Peters sued (original complaint filed 2016); his Third Amended Complaint (TAC) asserted causes of action against the City including inverse condemnation (9th), a § 1983 taking (13th), deceit/false promises (14th), injunctive and declaratory relief, and others (some later dismissed).
- The City demurred to the TAC; the trial court sustained the demurrer as to the 9th, 13th, 14th, 18th and 19th causes of action without leave to amend and dismissed the City.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding Peters failed to show error or a viable theory to cure pleading defects, and that the City was immune for emergency actions under the Emergency Services Act among other grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clerk denial of entry of default | Clerk improperly refused to file/enter defaults in 2017 and 2019 | Clerk correctly refused (procedural defects / pending motion) | Not reviewable on appeal; petitioner should have sought writ or trial-court relief earlier |
| One demurrer vs separate demurrers | City had to file separate demurrers so plaintiff could respond separately | A single demurrer may be taken to the whole complaint or any causes (CCP 430.50) | Single demurrer permitted; plaintiff’s claim forfeited for lack of authority |
| CCP 430.41(b) bar (raising grounds in later demurrer) | City raised grounds in demurrer to TAC that should have been raised earlier | City argued grounds were proper | Plaintiff failed to identify what grounds were barred; forfeited and insufficient record to show error |
| Inverse condemnation (9th cause) | City’s resolution diverted utility payments; Peters had protectable property interest in those payments; immunity inapplicable | No protectable interest in utility passthrough; Emergency Services Act grants immunity for emergency discretionary acts; statute of limitations | Demurrer sustained: immunity applies and plaintiff did not plead a cognizable property interest or viable claim |
| § 1983 taking (13th cause) | Denial/refusal to renew operating permit effected a taking; continuing violation tolls SOL | No vested property right in a renewable permit; claim time-barred; governmental immunity | Demurrer sustained: no vested right pleaded and statute of limitations bars the claim |
| Deceit / false promises (14th cause) | Misrepresentations re: permit renewal; could amend to state civil-rights claim | Failure to plead fraud with particularity; governmental immunity; no viable amendment shown | Demurrer sustained: fraud not pleaded with specificity and plaintiff failed to show a reasonable possibility of curing defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennings v. Marralle, 8 Cal.4th 121 (1994) (appealable judgment is jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal)
- Champir, LLC v. Fairbanks Ranch Assn., 66 Cal.App.5th 583 (2021) (appellant must support arguments with citations; court may deem points forfeited)
- Thousand Trails, Inc. v. California Reclamation Dist. No. 17, 124 Cal.App.4th 450 (2004) (Emergency Services Act provides broad immunity for discretionary emergency actions)
- Skrbina v. Fleming Companies, 45 Cal.App.4th 1353 (1996) (timing and mechanics of demurrer practice)
- Wolf v. Mulcrevy, 35 Cal.App. 80 (1917) (remedies to compel clerk to perform official duties)
- Holcomb v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 155 Cal.App.4th 490 (2007) (on review courts examine whether any ground supports sustaining demurrer)