Lower Court Properly Denied The Agency’s Motion Without Prejudice To Pursuing Recovery As Damages In The Separate Action.
A landowner lost an administrative writ against a public agency for allegedly improperly denying a land use annexation application, although two annexation applications actually were involved. The hitch was that the land use applications had an indemnity agreement which provided for an award of fees to the public agency, although the applications were signed by different entities. All of this led the landowner to file a superior court action challenging the application denial, which was ultimately unsuccessful. However, about one year later, City filed a separate suit for indemnity from the landowner based on some conflicting claims and another party cross-complained against City and landowner such that the indemnity agreement contained in the second annexation application is being heavily contested between all three interested parties.
However, the trial court in the first action where the land use application’s denial was upheld also denied without prejudice the public agency obtaining attorney’s fees against landowner given that those parties and others were duking it out in the separate action such that fees could be awarded as damages in the indemnity agreement fight.
Public agency appealed, but the 2/6 DCA found what the trial judge did to be eminently reasonable in Central Coast Development Co. v. San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Comm., Case No. B279000 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 26, 2018) (unpublished). After all, the defenses raised to the indemnity agreement, many of which were factual, were better vetted in a long-cause matter than a law and motion hearing. Public agency was not harmed because the previous denial was without prejudice.