Sunset Drive Corp. v. City of Redlands

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 628·73 Cal. App. 4th 215·86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 209·99 Daily Journal DAR 6727·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5304
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 30, 1999E022234California3,663 words

Opinion

Opinion

McKINSTER, J.

Sunset Drive Corporation (Sunset) appeals from the dismissal of its action after demurrers were sustained without leave to amend to its combined petition for writ of mandate and complaint for damages for the violation of its civil rights. Finding that the facts alleged by Sunset are sufficient to state claims for mandate and damages, we reverse.

Procedural Background

Sunset filed its action in May of 1996 against the City of Redlands and its city council (collectively, Redlands or the defendants). Alleged in two counts, it sought a writ of mandate, ordering the defendants to complete and certify an environmental impact report (EIR) on Sunset’s project, and an award of damages for its failure to do so. The defendants demurred to both counts. The demurrer was sustained with leave to amend.

Sunset’s first amended pleading again alleged two counts, seeking the same relief. The defendants again demurred. That demurrer was sustained without leave to amend the mandate count, and with leave to amend the count for damages.

Sunset’s second amended pleading alleged solely the count for damages. The defendants again demurred, and the demurrer was again sustained, this time…

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.