The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1999 0519 CC REG ITEM 11C2ao • 2 �� CITY OF MOORP =IRK, CALIFORNIA City Council leering of 5- l 1 cl ACTION: CITY OF MOORPARK AGENDA REPORT BY: ---- TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk DATE: May 11, 1999 (CC Meeting 5/19/99) SUBJECT: CONSIDER REQUEST FOR AMICUS SUPPORT IN CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CASE OF HAGGIS V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES- ISSUES RELATED TO PROPERTY INSPECTIONS BACKGROUND The City Attorney has forwarded a request for amicus support for the California Supreme Court Case of Haggis v. City of Los Angeles, and has indicated that this case involves issues that are of importance to the City of Moorpark. In the case of Haggis v. City of Los Angeles, the California Supreme Court will examine two issues that are of importance to local government agencies that conduct property inspections. The first issue concerns Government Code Section 818.6 and the immunity it gives to cities against claims that city staff 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. 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), and whether this statute protects public entities from negligence claims. Supporting information is attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Direct the City Attorney to sign a letter authorizing the City of Moorpark to be added to the amicus brief. Attachment: Letter dated April 22, 1999 000445 All California City Attorneys APR 2 7 1999 Re: Amicus Brief in California Supreme Court Case of Haggis v. City of Los Angeles (Review Granted December 16, 1998) Dear City Attorney: 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 government agency that conducts property inspections. The first issue concerns Government Code § 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 § 337.15). Does this statute protect public entities from negligence claims? The Legal Advocacy Committee of the League of California Cities has asked me to author an amicus brief in the Haggis case, to present the cities' point of view. I am writing to ask your city to join this brief. 111••. MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON MICHAEL NAVE A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION NORTH BAY OFFICE R. . MEYERS ELIZABETH H. SILVER ELIZABS. 555 FIFTH STREET, SUITE 230 MICHAEL GATEWAY PLAZA SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 A WILSON KENNETH A. WILSON 777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300 TELEPHONE: 1707) 545 -8009 DAVID W. SKINNER FACSIMILE: (707) 545 -6617 STEVEN T.MATTAS SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577 MICHAEL F. RODRIQUQ TELEPHONE: (510) 351 -4300 CLIFFORD F. CAMPBELL CENTRAL VALLEY OFFICE RICK W.JARVIS FACSIMILE: (510) 351 -4481 KATHLEEN FAUBION, AICP 5250 CLAREMONT AVENUE ARNE B. SANDBERG STOCKTON, CA 95207 BENJAMIN P. FAY TELEPHONE: (2091951-4080 DANIEL A. MULLER FACSIMILE: (209) 951.3009 LIANE M. RANDOLPH PATRICK WHITNELL KATHARINE G. WELLMAN JOHN W.TRUXAW GARY A. WATT JULIE L. HARRYMAN ADAM U. LINDGREN DIANE B. ROLEN CLAIRE S.BARDOS April 22, 1999 KEVIN R. BRODEHI JULIA L. BOND Reply To: KATHY E. MOUNT BERNADETTE S. CURRY San Leandro OF COUNSEL ANDREA J. SALTZMAN CERTIFIED APPELLATE SPECIALIST STEFANIE Y. GANDOLFI � YT� All California City Attorneys APR 2 7 1999 Re: Amicus Brief in California Supreme Court Case of Haggis v. City of Los Angeles (Review Granted December 16, 1998) Dear City Attorney: 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 government agency that conducts property inspections. The first issue concerns Government Code § 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 § 337.15). Does this statute protect public entities from negligence claims? The Legal Advocacy Committee of the League of California Cities has asked me to author an amicus brief in the Haggis case, to present the cities' point of view. I am writing to ask your city to join this brief. 111••. All California City Attorneys April 22, 1999 Page 2 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. Frankly, 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. Further, the Supreme Court's interest in the case ought to trouble you, as well. If the Court decides to make inroads into the protection either one of these statutes affords to cities, the resulting exposure your city may face to claims that it made inadequate inspections could run into the millions of dollars. It is for this reason that we seek your support. Please ask your city to join our amicus effort by permitting us to add its name as a sponsor of our brief. It will cost nothing for your city to do so. Once you obtain your city's authorization, simply fill in the attached form, and mail or fax it back to me. Please do so as soon as possible. I would like to have your city's approval by May 25, 1999, so that this brief can be prepared and submitted on time. 'See, footnote 5 of the Court of Appeal's opinion (67 Cal.App.4th 216, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 826). 000447 All California City Attorneys April 22, 1999 Page 3 Thank you so much for supporting our efforts. CFC:edl Enclosure J. \WPD\MNRSW\416 \07\LTR \1999 \CI'YATY.422 Very truly yours, MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON Cli d F. Campbell I a a 19 Date: [Please respond on or before May 25, 1999) By Facsimile to (510) 351 -4481 [We would prefer facsimile responses, wherever possible] Clifford Campbell Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson 777 Davis Street, Suite 300 San Leandro, CA 94577 Re: Paul Haggis v. City of Los Angeles Authorization to Add City to Amicus Brief Dear Mr. Campbell: The City of hereby authorizes you to add its name to the friend -of- the -court brief you are preparing in the case of Haggis v. City of Los Angeles. The City understands that you are preparing this brief on a pro Bono basis. The City further understands that it will incur no cost by joining in your brief. This authorization extends only to adding the city's name to the amicus brief you are preparing in the current stage of this litigation. You will need to get supplemental authorization from me to add the city's name to any further briefing efforts. Thank you for your advocacy efforts on behalf of public agencies in this matter. Very truly yours, [Signature] City Attorney [Print name] J: \WPD\ MNRSW\416\07\LTR\1999\AUTHRZTNATY 000449