Roberson v. City of Rialto CA4/2
173 Cal. Rptr. 3d 66
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- In May–July 2008 the Rialto Planning Commission recommended approval of a Wal‑Mart–anchored commercial project; the city council hearings were noticed for July 1, 2008 (continued to July 15), but the June 21 notice failed to state the planning commission’s recommendation.
- Roberson (a Rialto resident) petitioned for a writ under Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5 to set aside the city’s project approvals, arguing the July 1 notice violated Planning and Zoning Law §§ 65090, 65094.
- At trial (April 2, 2009) Roberson relied on his declaration that he would have submitted comments/testimony if he had known the commission’s recommendation, but he did not specify what those comments would have been; the trial court denied his petition and entered judgment in Jan. 2013.
- A separate action, Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto, raised the identical defective‑notice claim; this court held the notice was defective but reversed the trial court for failing to make requisite prejudice findings under § 65010(b). That decision became final before entry of judgment in Roberson’s case.
- On appeal the City and Wal‑Mart respondents argued (1) Roberson failed to show reversible error because the record is inadequate to establish prejudice and (2) Roberson’s claim is barred by res judicata and privity with Rialto Citizens.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Roberson’s petition to invalidate project approvals based on defective notice that omitted the planning commission’s recommendation | Roberson: his declaration was unopposed evidence of prejudice — he would have testified/submitted comments had he known the recommendation, so § 65010(b) prejudice is established or presumed | Respondents: record is inadequate (no trial transcript or tentative ruling) and Roberson failed to show what evidence he would have presented; prejudice not shown under § 65010(b) | Court: No reversible error — appellant failed to supply an adequate record and did not prove prejudice, substantial injury, or probability of different result required by § 65010(b) |
| Whether Roberson’s defective‑notice claim is barred by res judicata | Roberson: his prejudice was different because he did not actually participate in the council hearing (unlike Rialto Citizens), and he pursued the claim in his individual capacity | Respondents: the claim is identical to Rialto Citizens; that action produced a final judgment on the same issue; Roberson is in privity with Rialto Citizens because he sought to vindicate the same public interests and was adequately represented | Court: Claim barred — elements of res judicata satisfied (identical claim, final judgment, privity/identity of interest) |
| Whether the appeal is frivolous and sanctions are warranted | Roberson: appeal was colorable and he is a private citizen with standing; delay was partly attributable to respondents’ conduct | Respondents: appeal is frivolous/dilatory; request fees of $12,860 | Court: Denied dismissal and sanctions — issue close but not frivolous; appeal not prosecuted for improper motive and had arguable merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Environmental Defense Project of Sierra County v. County of Sierra, 158 Cal.App.4th 877 (2008) (notice must include planning commission recommendation to inform public and permit meaningful response)
- Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto, 208 Cal.App.4th 899 (2012) (court followed Environmental Defense Project that notice was defective but reversed trial court for failing to make § 65010(b) prejudice findings)
- Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 48 Cal.4th 788 (2010) (elements for res judicata: identical claim/issue, final judgment on the merits, and party or privity)
- Gottlieb v. Kest, 141 Cal.App.4th 141 (2006) (privity and adequate representation analysis for preclusion)
- Sounhein v. City of San Dimas, 11 Cal.App.4th 1255 (1992) (complete failure to provide notice or hearing is not harmless under predecessor statute)