Redevelopment Agency v. Commission on State Mandates

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 267·43 Cal. App. 4th 1188·51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 100·96 Daily Journal DAR 3436·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2056
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 7, 1996D024360California3,128 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

The State of California Department of Finance (DOF) appeals the order of the superior court denying its motion to intervene as an indispensable party in administrative mandamus proceedings brought by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Marcos (San Marcos) against the State of California Commission on State Mandates (the Commission). In those mandamus proceedings, San Marcos seeks to have overturned a decision of the Commission that San Marcos was not entitled to reimbursement (“subvention”) from state funds for particular housing costs that San Marcos incurred. (Cal. Const., art. XIII B, § 6; Gov. Code, § 17550 et seq.; Health and Saf. Code, §§ 33334.2, 33334.3.) At the administrative hearing before the Commission, DOF appeared and filed opposition to San Marcos’s request. The Commission determined that no state-mandated program was involved and, therefore, San Marcos was not entitled to the claimed reimbursement.

San Marcos then filed its petition for writ of administrative mandamus to challenge the Commission’s decision, but did not name any real parties in interest, only the Commission as respondent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) DOF then sought leave to…

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.