Schoderbek

Schoderbek v. Carlson

Good Law
152 Cal. App. 3d 1027·1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 1731·199 Cal. Rptr. 874
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 9, 1984AO22625California3,975 words

Opinion

Opinion

Panelli, J.

Fifteen plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a class which they represent, but which is not yet certified, appeal from the dismissal of their complaint following the granting of respondents’ motion for summary judgment. These same parties were previously before this court and sought a resolution of the same issues which are presented here. At that time this court determined that the appellants lacked standing to maintain an action where they had failed to exhaust all their possible administrative remedies. (Schoderbek v. Carlson (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 1029 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 400 ], (Schoderbek I).) At that time it was clearly indicated that the merits of appellants’ contentions were not being considered.

After exhaustion of administrative remedies in the manner suggested by this court in Schoderbek I, appellants, in February 1982, filed a new complaint seeking declaratory relief, a writ of mandate, injunctive relief, and damages. Appellants filed a motion for summary judgment in January 1983 and respondents filed a similar cross-motion in March 1983. On April 25, 1983, the court denied appellants’ motion, granted summary judgment to respondents, and ordered appellants’…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.