HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - May 19, 1999 E-17CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Request that City Join Amicus Brief in the case of Haggis v.Cifv
of Los Angeles
MEETING DATE: May 19, 1999
PREPARED BY: City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION: That the City join the amicus brief in the case of Haggis v. City of
Los Anaeles.
BACKGROUND: For purposes of information Amicus Curiae briefs are filed in various
actions which involve matters of wide ranging concern to provide
information and additional argument to the court.
In this case 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. Although this home was located on a
coastal bluff the instability of which was "a fact commonly known to anyone who regularly traveled on a Pacific Coast
Highway", I the plaintiff never bothered to inspect the available public records concerning the property the house was
built upon until after the earthquake had already done its damage. In the course of examining these records, following
the earthquake, the plaintiff in this matter 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 if the City had done so, the plaintiff never would have purchased the property in the first place.
This position by the property owner places into challenge the provisions of Government Code §818.6 which provides
an immunity which to this point in time has been absolute regarding the inadequacy or non -inspection of a third parties
property.
The City of Los Angeles has been successful through all levels of trial and Appellate Court to this point. The California
Supreme Court however has decided to review this case. Before the Supreme Court decided to review this case, the
case seemed to present a rather routine application of some clear cut statutory provisions that have been decided for
several years in a way favorable to cities. Thus, it is troublesome to cities and the League of California Cities who is
requesting our Amicus participation, that the Supreme Court has determined to review this case. If the court decides
to make inroads into the protection that is provided by Government Code §818.6, the resulting exposure to the City
could be quite extensive.
FUNDING: Not applicable.
Respectfully submitted,
Randall A. Hays, City Atty�7 ey
See footnote 5 of the Court of Appeals opinion
APPROVED:
H. D' on Flynn -- City Manager