Selkin

facts demonstrated that without any inspection, City officials who witnessed unlawful conditions had the authority or duty to act based on their personal observations. The City filed answers, and the parties engaged in discovery.

C. Summary Judgment Motion

The City moved for summary judgment against plaintiffs, making a number of arguments, including that the statutes and municipal code sections relied upon by plaintiffs did not impose a mandatory duty on the City, and that even if a mandatory duty applied, the inspection immunity statute precluded liability. Plaintiffs’ opposition argued the legal questions of whether a mandatory duty or inspection immunity applied. On the question of whether the City had a mandatory duty to take action, plaintiffs presented evidence of the safety hazards observed by City personnel. The evidence presented to the trial court at summary judgment established that between 2014 and 2021, police officers responding to the property observed various fire safety issues and were aware that individuals were living in the commercial building. In addition, the fire department received two customer service requests regarding an alleged marijuana grow…