California Supreme Court Watch

#20-250 Hill RHF Housing Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles, S263734. (B295181, B295315; 51 Cal.App.5th 621; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS170127, BS170352.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments in actions for writ of administrative mandate. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) In order to bring a judicial action challenging the validity of an assessment imposed pursuant to article XIII D, section 4 of the California Constitution, must a property owner articulate at the public hearing on the proposed assessment the reason or reasons it alleges the assessment is invalid? (2) If so, should this rule apply only prospectively?

Review granted; issues limited: 9/16/2020

Case published: 12/20/2021

See the California Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Hill RHF Housing Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2021) 12 Cal.5th 458.)

“In proceedings below, the Court of Appeal concluded that petitioners’ failure to present their objections to BIDs at the appropriate public hearings meant they had not exhausted their extrajudicial remedies, a lapse that prevented the court from deciding petitioners’ claims on the merits. We disagree. The opportunity to comment on a proposed BID does not involve the sort of ‘clearly defined machinery for the submission, evaluation and resolution of complaints by aggrieved parties’ (Rosenfield v. Malcolm (1967) 65 Cal.2d 559, 566 (Rosenfield)) that has allowed us to infer an exhaustion requirement in other contexts. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal’s exhaustion analysis does not find support in the policy rationales that inform the exhaustion doctrine nor in the intentions behind Proposition 218. These considerations lead us to hold that petitioners need not have raised their specific objections to the BIDs at the public hearings in order to subsequently advance these arguments in court. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.”

Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye authored the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Haller, J. concurred.