Sierra Palms Homeowners Ass'n v. Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Constr. Auth.
19 Cal. App. 5th 1127
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Sierra Palms HOA (manages 113-unit condominium in Azusa) sued Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority (Metro) and private Foothill Transit Constructors for negligence, nuisance, and inverse condemnation arising from Gold Line construction/maintenance adjacent to the complex.
- Sierra Palms alleged property damage (including a common block boundary wall) and loss of quiet enjoyment; it later dismissed the Los Angeles County MTA.
- Metro demurred: moved to dismiss negligence/nuisance for failure to comply with the Government Claims Act and argued Sierra Palms lacked ownership/standing for inverse condemnation.
- Sierra Palms stipulated to file an amended complaint limited to inverse condemnation for damage to the block wall, but filed an amended complaint late and then a second amended complaint without leave; it did not oppose defendants’ demurrers or motions to strike.
- Trial court sustained demurrers to inverse condemnation without leave to amend (finding no ownership allegation) and struck other claims as violating the stipulated order; judgment entered for both defendants.
- On appeal Sierra Palms challenged only denial of leave to amend; appellate court reversed as to Metro (HOA can amend to plead standing under Civil Code §5980 for common-area damage) and affirmed as to Foothill Transit (no showing HOA could plead inverse condemnation against private entity; other claims forfeited).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HOA has standing to bring inverse condemnation for damage to common area | Sierra Palms: §5980 permits HOA to sue as real party in interest for common-area damage, so it can prosecute inverse condemnation on owners’ behalf | Metro: inverse condemnation is constitutional, limited to "owner"; §5980 cannot expand constitutional standing to include HOA | Court: §5980 allows HOA to sue for common-area damage; HOA may amend to plead standing against Metro for inverse condemnation |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying leave to amend | Sierra Palms: could cure defects by amending to allege §5980-based standing | Defendants: plaintiff failed to oppose below and filed pleadings late; no showing it could cure | Court: abuse of discretion as to Metro — plaintiff met burden on appeal to show amendment possible; not met re: Foothill Transit |
| Whether §5980 can be used to pursue constitutional inverse condemnation claims | Sierra Palms: §5980 lets HOA stand in owners’ shoes to bring any theory for common-area damage | Metro: Legislature cannot enlarge constitutional "owner" requirement for inverse condemnation | Court: §5980 does not alter substantive constitutional rights; it permits HOA to sue as representative — procedural authorization is valid |
| Whether judgment for Foothill Transit should be reversed | Sierra Palms: could have amended negligence claim limited to wall; generally contests striking of complaint | Foothill Transit: plaintiff forfeited challenge by not briefing/arguing on appeal and by violating stipulated deadlines | Court: Sierra Palms forfeited challenge as to Foothill Transit; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Locklin v. City of Lafayette, 7 Cal.4th 327 (1994) (inverse condemnation recovers for special injury from governmental action)
- Windham at Carmel Mountain Ranch Assn. v. Superior Court, 109 Cal.App.4th 1162 (2003) (statutory standing for homeowners associations to sue for common-area damage should be read broadly)
- Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, 10 Cal.3d 110 (1973) (inverse condemnation requires invasion of an owner’s property right that specially affects landowner)
- Loeffler v. Target Corp., 58 Cal.4th 1081 (2014) (standard of review for demurrer—independent review of complaint)
- Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist., 2 Cal.4th 962 (1992) (appellate review whether denial of leave to amend abused discretion)