HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.13 Amicus Brief in CA
.
CITY CLERK
File # D~@][QJ-[g][Q]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 4, 1999
SUBJECT:
Amicus Brief in California (Report prepared by
Elizabeth H Silver, City Attorney)
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION: ~uthorize City to Join Amicus Brief
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
There is no cost to the City to join the Amicus Brief.
DESCRIPTION: In the case of Haggis v. City of Los Angeles the California Supreme Court will
examine two issues that are of importance to any local goverrunent agency that conducts property
inspections. The first issue concerns Goverrunent Code Section 818.6, and the immunity it gives to cities
against claims that they inadequately inspected a third party's property. Under existing law this immunity
is absolute. It protects a city regardless of what kind of claims a plaintiff may make. Will this immunity
survive intact?
The second issue concerns the ten year statute of limitation on actions that involve latent
deficiencies in the planning or construction of improvements to real property (Civ. Proc. Code Section
337.15). Does this statute protect public entities from negligence claims?
.
The Legal Advocacy Committee of the League of Cali fomi a Cities has authorized an amicus brief
in Lhe Haggis case, to present the cities' point of view.
In Haggis v. Los Angeles a home in Pacific Palisades was damaged in January, 1994, as a result of
the Northridge earthquake. The plaintiff had purchased the property slightly over two years before the
quake. However, although his home was located on a coastal bluff, the instability of which was "a fact
commonly known to anyone who regularly traveled on the Pacific Coast Highway," nevertheless the
plaintiff never bothered to inspect the available public records concerning his property until after the
earthquake had already done its damage. In the course of examining these records the plaintiff located
documents that disclosed that over the years the City had advised earlier owners that the property was
substandard, and that there was a hazardous slide condition on it. The plaintiff asserts that the City's
municipal code imposed upon it a mandatory duty to record such conditions on the title of the property;
and that if the city had done so, the plaintiff never would have purchased the property in the first place.
The City of Los Angeles was able to present its statute of limitations and immunity defenses
within the context of a demurrer. The trial court sustained the City's demurrer without leave to amend, a
decision that subsequently was upheld by the Court of Appeal. It is this decision that the California
Supreme Court now seeks to review.
Before the Supreme Court decided to review the Haggis case, this case seemed to present a rather
. routine application of some clear cut statutory provisions. Moreover, it did so in a way that was favorable
to cities. Thus, it was troublesome to the League when the Supreme Court determined to review the case.
---------------------------------------------;~;;~~;;;~-:;:;;;------------------~:;:~-~--~----------~~
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\amicus.doc
If the Court decides to make inroads into the protection either one of these statutes affords to cities, the _
resulting exposure the cities may face to claims that they made inadequate inspections could run into the
millions of dollars.
Recommendation:
.
Authorize the City Attorney to add the City of Dublin to the Amicus brief in Haggis v. City of Los
Angeles.
F:\ WPD\MNRSW\ J ] 4\0 I \AGENDA \ 1999\amicus.42 7 .doc
.
.
-)---