Tomrose

Tomrose v. City of Petaluma CA1/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 21, 2024A165448California2,153 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fujisaki, J.

facts and the law. Plaintiffs also sought declaratory relief, alleging a controversy “concerning the obligations and duties of [the City] under the Woodridge PUD and the IZO” and requesting a declaration of the parties’ rights and responsibilities under the PUD and IZO. Last, plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, alleging that defendants’ refusal to comply with the PUD and IZO caused or threatened to cause irreparable and substantial harm. Defendants and the Nelsons filed a joint answer to plaintiffs’ petition and complaint. In 2020, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, enjoining defendants from issuing permits for the

All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.

3 development of the Nelsons’ property, and enjoining the Nelsons from developing their property. The court subsequently held a hearing, denied plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of administrative mandamus, and dissolved the preliminary injunction. B. Judgment on the Pleadings After prevailing on plaintiffs’ mandamus petition, defendants and the Nelsons jointly filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings directed toward…

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.