leona valley town councilleona valley town council

Petitioner, Leona Valley Town Council, opposes the demurrer. . ) (Id. (See Evid. Exhibit A: Respondents request judicial notice of Exhibit A (Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release by and among Leona Valley Town Council, Ritter Park Associates, and the City of Palmdale, dated December 5, 1994 (Settlement Agreement)). Thus, the courtin its authority to determine the completeness of the recordmay determine whether an omitted record is properly included in the administrative record. (Code Civil Proc. (Raskin Decl., 11; see also AR 2480-2488, AR 2515. All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law., Petitioner argues the Settlement Agreement seeks to bar Petitioner in perpetuity from asserting its fundamental rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 3 of the California Constitution. (Opposition 8:8-11.). The Leona Valley Town Council is a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation. 459-460 . The City and Real Party argue Petitioners claims have been released by the terms of the 1994 Settlement Agreement. . In opposition, Petitioner also challenges the enforceability and validity of the agreement; however, the court need not address these arguments given its ruling on the demurrer. The court cannot find for purposes of demurrer res judicata and collateral estoppel apply here. Petitioner concedes the existence of the meeting minutes is not reasonably subject to dispute, but disputes the meaning of the contents. Petitioner opposes the requests arguing the documents are not properly subject to judicial notice. Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (b) and (c) do not support the request. (Id. (Evid. Petitioner used very little of its briefing to argue about documents not contained in the administrative record. The court may take judicial notice of a websites existence but not the truth of the matters contained therein. While the City and Real Party argue attorney authentication like Strombergs is routine (citing Landale-Cameron Court, Inc. v. Ahonen (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1409),[1] they provide no foundation to demonstrate Strombergs attestation the documents are what he attests them to be. (h).) The documents are also not electronically available to this court. [and] read[] as if its preparers randomly pulled out documents and threw them into binders, failing to organize them either chronologically or by subject matter. The court finds, Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e) provides a non-exclusive list of items that comprise the administrative record. Box 795, Palmdale, California, 93551 (661) 270-0008 www.leonavalleytc.org. (Reply 7:7-9.). Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e) provides a non-exclusive list of items that comprise the administrative record. Respondents argue the court can take judicial notice of the document pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h). (Exhibit 1) The investigation revealed the testimony provided by Narconon representatives to the Regional Planning Commissioners and statements by Narconon representatives at the Town Council Meetings conflicted with official . City Council - Manager Annual Retreat 10:00am. Exhibits L and M do not show the nature of the claims in the previous litigation. (. The court cannot conclude on demurrer Petitioners action is precluded by res judicata or collateral estoppel. ), Petitioners request is an unreasonable sanction. [6] Petitioner does not include the Avek Water Agreement, the Amargosa Creek Improvement Project Final EIR, and various resolutions and ordinances for the establishment of Community Facilities District 93-1. The City and Real Partys request for judicial notice of the Memorandum of Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release recorded on February 21, 1995 is granted. (, (d) These CITY and Waterworks actions and the Application Approvals. See more. The City and Real Partys authority to support judicial notice for a staff report is unpersuasive. PDF Motion to Adopt Proposed Settlement - California Water Service Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (b) and (c) do not support the request. at pp. City of Talty - TML City Officials Directory Its position can be summarized in three categories: depreciation; expenses including taxes other than on income . Exhibit F: Respondents request for judicial notice of the Memorandum of Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release, recorded on February 21, 1995 is granted pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h). A demurrer is simply not the appropriate procedure for determining the truth of disputed facts. [Citation.] .) An appropriate sanction is merely striking the supplementsuch an order reflects the facts as they were when Petitioner filed its Opening Brief. The City now representswithout admitting any issues with the original certified administrative recordit performed a fresh completeness review and prepared a corrected version of the record that includes inadvertently omitted documents, including the spreadsheet email attachments, meeting minutes, and resolutions. (Opposition 5:12-15.) The City and Real Party also argue that the Petition is barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel and/or retraxit. (a).) While a motion to augment the administrative record may only be necessary where there is a dispute about the contents of the administrative record (see Los Angeles County Court Rules, Rule 3.232, subdivision (f)), under the circumstances here where Petitioners Opening Brief for trial had already been filed, the City should have sought leave or authority from the court before certifying a supplement to the administrative record. The court must allow Petitioner the opportunity to present extrinsic evidence to prove up an ambiguity about the meaning of the document. leona valley elementary school. Respondent, City of Palmdale, moves for an order permitting it to correct and re-certify the administrative record for this proceeding to include additional records omitted from the administrative record it previously certified. A, 2(d) [emphasis added].). ) (, As discussed by Respondents, when the constitutional conditions doctrine has applied to settlement agreements it does so in a limited capacity so as not to allow untoward result[s] where private litigants would always be able to gain the benefit of any offer to compromise litigation without any reciprocal obligation. (, As generally understood, [t]he doctrine of, Traditionally, collateral estoppel has been found to bar relitigation of an issue decided at a previous proceeding if (1) the issue necessarily decided at the previous [proceeding] is identical to the one which is sought to be relitigated; (2) the previous [proceeding] resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the prior [proceeding]. [ ] It is implicit in this three-prong test that only issues actually litigated in the initial action may be precluded from the second proceeding under the collateral estoppel doctrine . Rules of Court, Rule 3.2205. (c).) MC002898 (, [C]ounsel . These time limits may be extended only upon the stipulation of all parties. (Id., subd. [Citations. While it will likely incur additional attorneys fees, the court finds such prejudice insufficient to deny the Citys motion. The doctrine of unconstitutional conditions limits the government's power to require one to surrender a constitutional right in exchange for a discretionary benefit. . ), As noted, on January 6, 2023, Petitioner filed its Opening Brief. The City also advises the corrected version of the administrative record is organized as required by the California Rules of Court, Rule 3.2205, subdivision (a), is text searchable, and does not alter any of the prior bates page numbering of the documents in the record the City originally certified. (Opposition 5:16-17.) The court may take judicial notice of the recorded deeds and their legal effect. . Stromberg now sets forth a supplemental foundation to support his authentication of Exhibits G through I and L through M. (Stromberg 10/5/22 Decl., 2-9. Some are taking the rising waters in stride. (c). B083984) pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d) is denied. Government | Leon Valley Texas 2023-02-23, Los Angeles County Superior Courts | Personal Injury | . The Registered Agent on file for this company is Judith Anaya and is located at 8367 Elizabeth Lake Rd., Leona Valley, CA 93551. Code 453.) (b).) In support, Respondents cite several casesincluding, Thus, there is no dispute the Settlement Agreement is genuine and accurate. UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. (Evid. Or, in other words, the condition is one that would have constituted a taking of property without just compensation if it were imposed by the government on a property owner outside of the permit process. (California Building, supra, 61 Cal.4th at pp. The City and Real Party, however, cite no legal authority to support their position. (Pet., 18.) . [Citation.] (. The Leona Valley Town Council meets at 7:00 p.m. on the second Monday of every month at the Leona Valley Community Building located at 8367 Elizabeth . Code, 452, subd. The motion to strike is granted. . Legislative Town Hall 6:30pm. (See Evid. The company's filing status is listed as Active and its File Number is 1876183. 89-02, EIR No. [9] The documents are also not electronically available to this court. The City and Real Party oppose the motion. The court finds the documents for which judicial notice is sought are not properly authenticated; Strombergs generalized non-specific declaration is insufficient foundation. MC003201 (Court of Appeal Case No. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is found at Public Resources Code section 21000, The court declines Petitioners suggestion it should reconsider its prior order and grant it judgment based on an incomplete administrative record. Respondents also seek judicial notice of the courts own court records in Los Angeles Superior Court Case Nos. The Settlement Agreement defined Settled Dispute as follows: (i) All disputes raised relating to the Ritter Ranch Project, the Amargosa Creek Improvement Project and the Project Approvals and the Application Approvals (including future requests for approvals which are in conformance therewith) including without limitation all claims in the First, Second, Third and Fourth Actions . While the City and Real Party argue attorney authentication like Strombergs is routine (citing, The City and Real Partys request for judicial notice of the Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release by and among Leona Valley Town Council, Ritter Park Associates, and the City of Palmdale, dated December 5, 1994 is granted. (Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1117-1118. The unconstitutional conditions doctrine applies only where the condition at issue constitutes an exaction in the form of either the conveyance of a property interest or the payment of money; the doctrine does not apply where the government simply restricts the use of property without demanding an exaction. The Court ruled in relevant part: We take judicial notice of the [underlying] settlement agreements and consider their contents even though they are outside the four corners of the complaint, as there is and can be no factual dispute concerning the contents of the agreements. (Id. EIR 90-4 determined the potential environmental impacts of the project were less than significant. [4] In conformance with the Specific Plan and the EIR, RITTER has submitted the following applications with respect to the Ritter Ranch Project: a 404 Permit (U.S. Army Corp of Engineers), a 1601 Permit (California Dept. . [Citation.] The court is unpersuaded. 19-20.) That is, the statutory language is mandatoryall items described in any of the enumerated categories shall be included in the administrative record. ), [A] dismissal with prejudice is . Based on the foregoing allegations and on this record, the court cannot find on demurrer that Petitioners claims are barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. Resources Code 21167.6, subd. ] (Id. (Pet., 12.) Petitioner concedes the existence of the minutes is not reasonably subject to dispute. Leona Valley Town Council - Overview, News & Competitors - ZoomInfo Exhibit J: The City and Real Partys request for judicial notice of an excerpt from the City Council agenda materials for the April 20, 2022 Palmdale City Council meeting is denied. (a); A demurrer may be sustained without leave to amend when there is no reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment. The vote locations are being co-hosted by the Lakes Town Council, the Three Points Town Council, the Littlerock Town Council, the Green Valley Town Council, the Leona Valley Town Council, and the Golden Valley Municipal Water District, along with the non-profit organization SBCC (Strength Based Community Change). As the cross-complaints do not seek writ relief and pray for damages, the cross-complaints are not properly heard in the writs and receivers departments of this court. at 754.) [3] Specifically, Petitioner argues that actions not in conformity with the City and Waterworks actions and the application approvals do not meet the definition of Project Approvals under the Settlement Agreement and therefore are not subject to the scope of release in the Settlement Agreement. ), As generally understood, [t]he doctrine of res judicata gives certain conclusive effect to a former judgment in subsequent litigation involving the same controversy. (People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 252.) ] (Panterra GP, Inc. v. Superior Court of Kern County (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 697, 709; Joslin v. H.A.S. of Fish and Game), and a 401 Permit (Water Quality Control Board). The City and Real Partys request for judicial notice of the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of October 19, 1994 is granted. Public Records Policy. (Wood v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 562, 580, fn. . While the court takes judicial notice of the document, it does not take judicial notice of the facts asserted therein. A, 4(b).) 1076 is granted. The membership year runs from April 1 to March 31. (h).) A court ruling on a demurrer therefore cannot take judicial notice of the proper interpretation of a document submitted in support of the demurrer. Petitioner opposes the request in part based on a failure to properly authenticate the documents for which judicial notice is sought. While the court takes judicial notice of the document, it does not take judicial notice of the facts asserted therein. (See also Cal. The court may take judicial notice of the recorded document but not the truth of the matters contained therein. Code, 452, subd. First, Exhibits L and M are not properly before the court. Park Commission 6:30pm. An issue is actually litigated [w]hen [it] is properly raised, by the pleadings or otherwise, and is submitted for determination, and is determined . For a court to take judicial notice of the meaning of a document submitted by a demurring party based on the document alone, without allowing the parties an opportunity to present extrinsic evidence of the meaning of the document, would be improper. ), The City and Real Partys request judicial notice of the First Amendment to Development Agreement (Development Agreement 92-1) recorded on December 19, 1995 is granted. First, Petitioner states that the Settlement Agreement violates the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. ), Petitioner argues the City certified a legally inadequate administrative record in this matter on November 7, 2022. Petitioner therefore suggests the Citys motion to recertify the administrative record fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1010 which requires a notice of motion state when, and the grounds upon which it will be made. Petitioner argues [t]he City cannot rely on the absence of statutory authority to justify its request. (Opposition 14:5-6. Specifically, Petitioner argues the Settlement Agreement pertains only to and releases claims related to Project Approvals and Project Approvals, here, are only defined as approvals in conformance with the City and Waterworks actions (as defined by the Settlement Agreement) and the Application Approvals. Like Real Partys cross-complaint, the City alleges a claim for breach of contract as well as a derivative declaratory relief claim. In support, Respondents cite several casesincluding Performance Plastering v. Richmond American Homes of California, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 659 and Scott v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. The court may take judicial notice of these documents and the effect of these recorded documents. [3] Respondents filed a corrected declaration on October 6, 2022, attaching the omitted Exhibit J. (Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at 1117-1118.). (h).) Location: People at location: North America: 4: The Leona Valley Town Council was formed in 1989 at the suggestion of Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich. Accordingly, as the demurrer turns on the legal interpretation of the Settlement Agreement, the court properly overrules the demurrer. (Evid. None of the cases cited by Respondents suggest a Staff Report is properly subject to judicial notice. Associate membership is available to persons owning businesses or employed in Leona Valley, or former active members. Then Leona Valley, a village of about 600 small ranches where a developer wants to build 7,200 housing units, formed a town council in 1990. Exhibit B: Respondents seek judicial notice of the Citys Councils special meeting minutes. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1306, subd. Thomas Drayage etc. . To take judicial notice of a document, the document must be properly authenticated by a qualified witness. Exhibits L and M: Respondents request for judicial notice of the Second District Court of Appeals dockets for Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. Joseph S. Lucido Leona Valley Cherry Growers Association 26201 Tuolumne St Mojave, CA 93501. Code, 452, subd. . (Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal.3d at 318.) Thus, a waiver of judicial process as a condition of settlement is reviewed only to determine whether it is rationally and fairly related both to a legitimate government interest and to the benefit conferred. (Ibid. (See Freemont Indemnity Co. v. Freemont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113-115 [explaining that generally on demurrer a court may not take judicial notice of the proper interpretation of a contract where that interpretation is disputed].). If the court cannot reach consensus about how to proceed, if requested, the court intends to set a motion to augment on statutory time. As explained in Beach & Bluff Conservancy v. City of Solana Beach (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 244: [A] predicate for any unconstitutional conditions claim is that the government could not have constitutionally ordered the person asserting the claim to do what it attempted to pressure that person into doing. [Citation.] Petitioner appealed the Phase 1A project approval to the city council. The Leona Valley Town Council was formed in 1989 at the suggestion of Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich. (. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 638 unlike the issues raised here. ), Exhibit F: The City and Real Partys request for judicial notice of the Memorandum of Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release recorded on February 21, 1995 is granted. . While Petitioner does not more specifically define the prejudice it will suffer, it appears Petitioners concern suggests additional attorney time will be expended to revise its opening brief. Exhibit B: The City and Real Partys request for judicial notice of the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of October 19, 1994 is granted. [5], Specifically, Petitioner argues the Settlement Agreement pertains only to and releases claims related to Project Approvals and Project Approvals, here, are only defined as approvals in conformance with the City and Waterworks actions (as defined by the Settlement Agreement) and the Application Approvals. (b)(1).) (Pet., 18.) Councilmember Hubbard and his wife Marian moved to Fairview in 2014 and have three adult children and five grandchildren. at 114-115 [emphasis added].) In June 2012, the development agreement expired. . (RJN Ex. (Evid. became available." While the court finds striking the supplement to the administrative record is an appropriate sanction here, the court is not prejudging any future motion to augment the administrative record the City may bring. EIN: 95-4433625; Nonprofit Tax Code Designation: 501(c)(4) Defined as: Civic leagues, social welfare organizations and local associations of employees, created to promote community welfare for charitable, educational or recreational purposes. As a preliminary matter, the court makes no assessment concerning the adequacy of the administrative recordwith or without the supplementfor purposes of this motion. At that time, Petitioner may reset for hearing before the assigned independent calendar judge its demurrer and special motions to strike. Resources Code, 15 [Public Resources Code references to shall are mandatory]. . ), In Scott v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at 743, the Court took judicial notice of the fact and legal effect of a government contract where a party did not allege or argue in the trial court the contract was inauthentic or otherwise reasonably subject to dispute. Those motions are fully briefed and set for hearing today. The Leona Valley Town Council is a Not for Profit organization created to preserve the. Code, 452, subd. Petitioner concedes the existence of the minutes is not reasonably subject to dispute. Or, in other words, the condition is one that would have constituted a taking of property without just compensation if it were imposed by the government on a property owner outside of the permit process. (California Building, supra, 61 Cal.4th at pp. Michelle Flanagan is a native Californian who moved to the Antelope Valley in 1989. The City Council failed to make full consideration of EIR 90-4, and recognize the adverse environmental assessment of that EIR and any overriding considerations. (Pet., 30. A9905020 McVicar Comment Dec. - California Petitioner, Leona Valley Town Council, moves to strike the supplement to the administrative record filed by Respondent, the City of Palmdale, after Petitioner filed its opening brief. The town of Centreville, as it was first spelled, officially became the Leon County Seat on January 24, 1850. 2. v. City of Livermore et al. Mitchell L. Beckloff in Department 86 Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Verified Petition and Complaint for (1) Writ of Administrative Mandamus, or in the Alternative, Writ of Mandate, and (2) Declaratory Relief; Filed by: LEONA VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL, a California Non-Profit Corporation (Petitioner); As to: CITY OF PALMDALE CITY COUNCIL IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY (Defendant); CITY OF PALMDALE (Defendant), Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: LEONA VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL, a California Non-Profit Corporation (Petitioner); As to: CITY OF PALMDALE CITY COUNCIL IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY (Defendant); CITY OF PALMDALE (Defendant), Request REQUEST THAT THE CITY OF PALMDALE'S CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS ASSEMBLE AND TRANSMIT THE MATERIALS WHICH CONSTITUTE THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THIS MATTER; Filed by: LEONA VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL, a California Non-Profit Corporation (Petitioner); As to: CITY OF PALMDALE CITY COUNCIL IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY (Defendant); CITY OF PALMDALE (Defendant), Request REQUEST TO SET A HEARING; Filed by: LEONA VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL, a California Non-Profit Corporation (Petitioner); As to: CITY OF PALMDALE CITY COUNCIL IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY (Defendant); CITY OF PALMDALE (Defendant), Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk, Respondent, City of Palmdale, moves for an order permitting it to correct and re-certify the administrative record for this proceeding to include additional records omitted from the administrative record it previously certified. ), Petitioner contends the court should enter judgment in its favor here as a sanction under Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (d). Thus, the City attempted to cure the deficiencies in the administrative record identified by Petitioner in its Opening Brief. Leona Valley Cherry Growers Association 26201 Tuolumne St Mojave, CA 93501. The Leona Valley Town Council was formed in 1989 at the suggestion of Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich. (c).). .. (RJN Ex. ., but also facts that clearly derive from its legal effect. (Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. Nonetheless, Petitioner disputes the minutes provide important confirmation of the City of Palmdales official approval of the Settlement Agreement. Specifically, Petitioner challenges Respondents assertion the Settlement Agreement at issue here is the Settlement Agreement discussed in Exhibit B. It is clear, nonetheless, that the Legislature anticipated that such disputes would arise. (Evid. Leona Valley Town Council, Palmdale, California - AllPeople . While Respondents argue attorney authentication such as Strombergs is routine (citing, The court continued the matter and gave leave to Respondents to provide additional factual information in support of Strombergs authentication of the documents for purposes of judicial notice. Contrary to Respondents position, Petitioner claims the Phase 1A Projects conformity is not now (as result of the expired Development Agreement and expired Water Service Agreement) limited only to conformity with the Specific Plan and Final EIR. The court finds Petitioners argument unpersuasive. While we may not judicially notice the truth of any statement in these materials, we may take notice of the fact that they were made to the public.]; but see Tabarrejo v. Superior Court (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 849, 855, fn. 13-North Central Texas-Dallas. Respondents request for judicial notice of the Second District Court of Appeals dockets for Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. . The purpose of the Leona Valley Town Council is to act as a representative body for the community. PDF 8. Draft EIR/EIS Comments and Responses - California 1243, 1253.) Moreover, as noted, the plaintiff in the case did not allege or argue in the trial court that the [judicially noticed] contract was inauthentic or otherwise reasonably subject to dispute. (Id. (a)) and (2) refusal to issue further certificates of occupancy until construction of certain roadways is completed and approved by the City Engineer ( 5.(d)). The court may take judicial notice not only of the fact of the document and its recording . . An issue is actually litigated [w]hen [it] is properly raised, by the pleadings or otherwise, and is submitted for determination, and is determined . Instead, the court need only evaluate whether the Citys attempt to supplement the administrative record to address possible deficiencies raised by Petitioner in its Opening Brief is consistent with applicable laws, regulations and court rules.