Pyle v. City of Fresno
Appellant Edwin L. Pyle filed this civil action against the City of Fresno (City) after the City allegedly denied his application for approval of a second unit residence on his property. His in propria persona third amended complaint described the second unit residence as a 306 square foot structure with a kitchenette and bathroom with shower stall. The third amended complaint alleged five causes of action. They were entitled: (1) CCP 1085, - Illegal Denial of Building Permit; (2) Govt. Code 815.6 CITY Liability; (3) Govt. Code 820.(a) Illegal Revocation of Electrical Service Meter Permit; (4) Fee Mitigation Act Government Code 66000 66025; and (5) Injunctive Relief. After appellant presented his case at his jury trial, the court granted the Citys motion for nonsuit as to the plaintiffs first, second and fourth cause of action. The trial continued on appellants third cause of action only, and the jury returned a special verdict answering the question Did the plaintiff Edwin Pyle prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the revocation of plaintiffs electrical permit was illegal? with an answer of, No. It is not clear from the record on appeal what happened to appellants fifth cause of action, but it is clear from the judgment that the court granted no injunctive relief (or any other relief) of any kind. The judgment ordered that plaintiff take nothing by reason of his complaint. The judgment is affirmed.
Comments on Pyle v. City of Fresno