Burns

Burns v. City Council

Caution
107 Cal. Rptr. 787·1973 Cal. App. LEXIS 1125·31 Cal. App. 3d 999
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 1973Civ. 13391California2,031 words

Opinion

Opinion

Plaintiff Burns appeals from a judgment of dismissal following an order sustaining without leave to amend a general demurrer to his second amended complaint. We explain why we sustain the judgment.

Plaintiff is alleged to be a licensed real estate broker and general building contractor. Defendants are the. City of Folsom, the members of its city council, Marvin J. May, its building inspector, Cyrus Thomas, its “administrator of city functions,” and James E. Buchanan, its commissioner of city planning.

There are, and were during the time the acts and omissions referred to in the complaint occurred, 108 parcels of real property in Folsom zoned for single-unit dwelling houses and known as Natomas Heights Unit Number 9. On July 16, 1970, plaintiff possessed a commitment issued under section 235 of the National Housing Act of 1968 by the United States Housing and Urban Development Administration for the financing of 30 single-unit residential buildings, and had the right to purchase those lots. Plaintiff had certified plans and specifications for the construction of 30 single-unit residential buildings (presumably on those lots). Those plans complied with…

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.