Photo of Abbott & Kindermann, Inc.

Abbott & Kindermann, Inc.

Subscribe to Abbott & Kindermann, Inc.'s Posts
Follow:Read more about Abbott & Kindermann, Inc.Jeaninne's Linkedin Profile

By Cori Badgley and Emilio Camacho

In Monterey/Santa Cruz County Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Cypress Marina Heights LP (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1500, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, held that deeds acquiring property from a redevelopment agency required the purchaser/developer to pay prevailing wages to the construction workers. In addition, the appellate court also held that plaintiffs were entitled to $73,167.50 in attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.Continue Reading Bad Deeds Make Bad Law

In Alameda Books et al. v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2011, No. No. 09-55367 __ F.3d ____ [2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1769] the Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs claiming an ordinance requiring the dispersal of adult entertainment businesses violated the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit found that the biased declarations upon which the summary judgment was based did not amount to actual and convincing evidence sufficient to cast doubt on the rationale of the City of Los Angeles in creating the ordinance.
Continue Reading Government Rationale Given Benefit of the Doubt in First Amendment Challenge to Zoning Ordinance

By Glen C. Hansen

In 2008, the California Legislature enacted Civil Code section 2923.5. That statute requires, before a notice of default may be filed, that a lender contact the borrower in person or by telephone to “assess” the borrower’s financial situation and to “explore” options for the borrower to prevent foreclosure.  In Mabry v. Superior Court (June 2, 2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 208, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District addressed a case where plaintiff borrowers brought an action that requested a restraining order to prevent a foreclosure sale based on the lender’s alleged failure to comply with section 2923.5. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ request on the grounds of no private right of enforcement and federal preemption. The Court of Appeal reversed, and disagreeing with the trial court on both grounds.Continue Reading Borrowers May Sue to Postpone a Foreclosure if the Lender Does Not First Discuss Options with the Borrower to Prevent Foreclosure

By Glen Hansen

In Hashalom v. City of Santa Monica (No. B212733, November 22, 2010) 2010 Cal.App. LEXIS 1990, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that an apartment complex did not fall within a statutory exemption from historic preservation provided by Government Code section 37361, subdivision (c), because the property had always been a commercial enterprise, both when the current owner purchased it and when the same owner later sought the exemption.Continue Reading To be Exempt from Landmark Designation, a Property Must be Related to the Owner’s Religious Mission Before Application for the Exemption

Lawsuit challenging a county’s ordinance regulating medical marijuana dispensaries was not brought within the 90 day statute of limitations. Plaintiff’s attempts to cast the lawsuit as an as-applied challenge to bring it within the statute of limitations were unsuccessful. A wolf in sheep’s clothing is still a wolf, no matter how you dress it up.
Continue Reading A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing is Still a Wolf: Court Denies Medical Marijuana Case on Statute of Limitations Grounds

When it comes to development agreements, local agencies are treated like any other private contracting party, including the payment of damages if the agency breaches the agreement. The Town of Mammoth Lakes learned this lesson the hard way when a jury awarded $30 Million to a developer for the town’s failure to process a development application in good faith pursuant to the development agreement.
Continue Reading Town Forced to Pay $30 Million for Breach of a Development Agreement

By Cori Badgley

The long legal battle over Pacific Lumber Company’s logging of timberland in Humboldt County continues as the parties now fight over attorney’s fees. In Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, the Supreme Court finally resolved all of the substantive issues on the merits. In summary, the Supreme Court set aside the department’s approval of a sustained yield plan based on two of petitioner’s arguments, invalidated a portion of the incidental take permit, and upheld the department’s streambed alteration agreement and certification of the environmental impact report/environmental impact statement. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the matter was remanded back to the appellate court, and the appellate court heard arguments on whether petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees and in what amount. (Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 217.)Continue Reading Money, Money, Money: Pacific Lumber Co. Litigation Ends in Battle over Attorney’s Fees

By Cori Badgley

In 2009, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a controversial determination that a rent control ordinance relating to mobilehome parks constituted a regulatory taking. (See “Take This! Wealth-Transfer under Rent Control Ordinance Constitutes a Regulatory Taking.”) In 2010 in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta (December 22, 2010, No. 06-56306) __ F.3d __ (“Guggenheim II”), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc reversed its previous decision, holding that the plaintiffs had no distinct investment-backed expectations when they purchased the property. Therefore, the rent control ordinance did not constitute a taking of their property.Continue Reading You Get What You Pay For: Rent Control Ordinance Upheld by Ninth Circuit

By Kathrine J. Hart

In Azusa Land Partners v. Department of Industrial Relations, (Dec. 21, 2010, No. B218275) ____ Cal.App.4th ____, the Second Appellate District Court of Appeals upheld determinations by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) and trial court that (1) a master planned community project is a “public work” subject to prevailing wage laws applicable to public improvement work performed by private contractors where such work was a condition of project approval, (2) Mello-Roos proceeds are “public funds,” and (3) once a project is deemed a “public work” under Prevailing Wage Law, the entire project is subject to the law – including those improvements which are privately financed. This case is significant because it turns the historical interpretation of “public work” under the Prevailing Wage Law on its head; typically the analysis to ascertain whether each public improvement is a public work is based on whether any portion of the required public improvement work received a direct allocation of public funds. If this decision stands, developers will be subject to prevailing wages on all projects which include public improvements financed only partially by public funds.Continue Reading Court Says Developers Must Pay Prevailing Wages on Privately-Financed Public Improvements