Brandenburg

Brandenburg v. EUREKA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Good Law
152 Cal. App. 4th 1350·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1108·62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 339
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 2, 2007A114366California5,775 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stein, J.

Sue C. Brandenburg (plaintiff) appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendants Eureka Redevelopment Agency, Eureka Waterfront Partners and Dolores Vellutini (defendants) after the court sustained, without leave to amend, defendants’ demurrer to her first amended complaint on the ground that it was filed after the statute of limitations had expired.

We shall affirm the judgment.

Facts

The original complaint was filed on September 12, 2005. The first amended complaint alleged that, pursuant to the provisions of Health and Safety Code section 33200, the City Council of Eureka appointed itself to serve as the Board of Directors for the Eureka Redevelopment Agency (Agency). The Agency created a Redevelopment Advisory Board (RAB) in August 1993, to assist the Agency in implementing plans to redevelop blighted areas in Eureka.

In July 1994, Dolores Vellutini, who is also a partner in Eureka Waterfront Partners, was appointed to serve on the RAB. She served continuously until she resigned in 2005, before the complaint was filed. Vellutini and Eureka Waterfront Partners submitted a proposal for the development of property known as the Fishermen’s Building. On October 3,…

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.