County of Los Angeles v. City of Downey CA2/1

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

In reviewing an order sustaining a demurrer, we treat the well-pleaded facts as true and give them a liberal interpretation. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.) The County‟s first amended complaint for nuisance sought damages and injunctive relief. The trial court sustained Cities‟ demurrer on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action for nuisance and the County failed to present Cities with adequate claims for money damages under the Government Claims Act. (Gov. Code, §§ 910, 945.4.) The court struck the County‟s claim for damages and allowed it to amend its complaint for injunctive relief. The County‟s second amended complaint for nuisance alleges the following.1 One of the County‟s missions is to protect its residents from flood waters and to conserve water for their use. “In connection with its flood control and water conservation responsibilities, the [County] owns and operates a flood control system in portions of the Los Angeles River and its watershed.” The City of Los Angeles owns, operates and maintains over 2,000 miles of open channels, drainage pipes and other structures which discharge…