Cruz

Cruz v. City of Culver City

Good Law
2 Cal. App. 5th 239·2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 654·205 Cal. Rptr. 3d 736
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 15, 2016B265690California3,124 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rubin, J.

—Plaintiffs Paula Cruz and four of her neighbors appeal from the order dismissing as an anti-SLAPP action their complaint against the City Council of the City of Culver City (the council) and five of its council members for allegedly violating the state’s open meeting laws. We reject plaintiffs’ contentions that the action is exempt from the anti-SLAPP provisions because it concerned the public interest, and affirm because there is no probability plaintiffs will prevail on the merits.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Culver City residents Paula Cruz, Ronald Davis, John Heyl, James Province, and Nadine F. Province sued the City of Culver City (the city) for violating the state’s open meeting law (Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.; Ralph M. Brown Act (the Brown Act)), alleging that the council violated the Brown Act in two ways: (1) by discussing a change to parking restrictions in their neighborhood even though it was not on the agenda and (2) by taking action on that issue when the council implicitly decided that the new challenge to those restrictions could proceed as an appeal of an earlier denial by city staff members.

The parking restrictions were imposed in 1982 when…

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.