Woody's Group, Inc. v. City of Newport Beach
233 Cal. App. 4th 1012
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Woody’s Wharf, a longstanding Newport Beach restaurant, obtained planning commission approval for a patio cover, extended weekend hours to 2 a.m., and interior dancing; commission vote 5–2 (Sept. 5, 2013).
- City Councilmember Mike Henn emailed the city clerk four days later asserting an "official request to appeal," but he did not claim to be an "interested party," did not use the clerk’s appeal form, and paid no filing fee required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
- At the Council hearing Henn delivered an extensive prewritten presentation arguing the commission’s approval should be reversed; the Council voted 4–1 to reverse (one abstention, one recusal), adopting Resolution 2013-75.
- Resolution 2013-75 justified Henn’s procedural irregularity by citing an alleged long‑standing city practice exempting councilmembers from appeal fees and formal filing requirements.
- Woody’s sought a writ of administrative mandate and brought a § 1983 claim; the trial court denied the writ and granted a preliminary injunction limiting Woody’s operations; Woody’s appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Henn’s participation created unlawful bias denying due process | Henn demonstrated an "unacceptable probability of actual bias" (preexisting opposition, authored appeal, prewritten speech, moved to reverse) so he should not have adjudicated | Council argued Henn could participate and did not dominate the hearing; reliance on BreakZone where a councilmember appeal was authorized | Court: Henn’s precommitment and dominant role created an unacceptable probability of bias; his participation violated due process (Nasha applied) |
| Whether the Council had authority to entertain an appeal initiated by a councilmember who did not comply with municipal appeal procedures | Woody’s: Municipal Code requires appeals only by "interested party," filing on clerk’s form, and fee; no exception for councilmembers, so the Council lacked authority to hear Henn’s appeal | City: asserted a long‑standing practice/policy allowing councilmembers to "call up" matters and not pay fee; relied on BreakZone and practice | Court: Municipal Code contains no exception; unwritten/customary practice cannot override code; Council lacked authority under Cohan, so its action was invalid |
| Whether the procedural defects were harmless error | Woody’s: defects not harmless because Council had no authority and bias affected process and outcome | City: argued errors were harmless (e.g., interested residents would have appealed) | Court: Harmless‑error rationale rejected — unauthorized appeal to itself is not harmless; decision must be nullified (Cohan) |
| Proper remedy and appellate posture (appealability) | Woody’s: seeks reversal of injunction and writ restoring planning commission approval | City: defended trial court denials; relied on standard appeal processes | Court: Treated nonappealable denial of writ as petition for extraordinary writ, reversed preliminary injunction, vacated denial of the writ and directed trial court to grant Woody’s writ; remand unnecessary because errors were clear |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks, 30 Cal.App.4th 547 (Cal. Ct. App.) (city council’s appeal to itself when not authorized by municipal code invalidates council decision)
- Nasha v. City of Los Angeles, 125 Cal.App.4th 470 (Cal. Ct. App.) (prehearing advocacy by a decisionmaker creating an unacceptable probability of bias requires vacatur)
- BreakZone Billiards v. City of Torrance, 81 Cal.App.4th 1205 (Cal. Ct. App.) (distinguishable: municipal code there expressly permitted councilmember appeals; bias analysis requires contextual inquiry)
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1975) (due process bias standard discussed in adjudicatory contexts)