MAGINN

MAGINN v. City of Glendale

Bad Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 562·72 Cal. App. 4th 1102·85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 639·99 Daily Journal DAR 5741·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4545
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 9, 1999B122738California2,717 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

Introduction

Plaintiffs Christine A. Maginn and the Maginn Revocable Living Trust sued defendant the City of Glendale for inverse condemnation and violation of due process and equal protection, after the city council denied plaintiffs’ application for a tentative parcel map to subdivide real property for the purpose of building a home on the proposed second lot. The trial court dismissed the case after sustaining defendant’s demurrer on statute of limitations grounds. We affirm.

Government Code section 66499.37 provides that any action or proceeding to review a decision concerning a subdivision must be “commenced and service of summons effected within 90 days after the date of such decision.” (Italics added.) We hold that although the superior court clerk erred in refusing to issue summons on the 90th day on the ground the complaint was not accompanied by a civil cáse cover sheet, that error was cured on the 91st day, and plaintiffs’ subsequent failure to serve the summons until the 93d day was not excusable.

Background

Legal

“Any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul the decision of . . . [a] legislative body concerning a subdivision . . .…

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.