Mola Development Corp. v. City of Seal Beach

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 684·57 Cal. App. 4th 405·67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 103·97 Daily Journal DAR 11277·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7046
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 27, 1997G014576California5,198 words

Opinion

Opinion

Crosby, J.

Is the mere filing of a lawsuit for administrative mandamus the same as pursuing it to decision? Mola Development Corporation argues it is, but we disagree. Mola filed an action for administrative mandamus to overturn the City of Seal Beach’s quasi-judicial decision to disapprove a vesting tentative map, but voluntarily dismissed it on the eve of trial. That dismissal precludes, we will hold, a suit for damages for a regulatory taking.

There is an obvious and fundamental distinction between initiating mandamus and obtaining a judgment. The Supreme Court tells us “[a] final administrative decision includes exhaustion of any available review mechanism.” (Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1, 12 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 244 , 876 P.2d 1043 ], italics added.) By dropping mandamus, Mola allowed the administrative decision to achieve finality and issue preclusive effect. It cannot now seek damages for a regulatory taking.

We are not impressed with Mola’s claim to be exempt from the mandamus requirement because its option to develop the property expired during the pendency of the mandamus action. Hensler itself holds that private parties cannot unilaterally shorten the 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.