Friends for Fullerton’s Future v. City of Fullerton

Plaintiffs and appellants Friends for Fullerton’s Future and Tony Bushala (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appeal from a judgment rejecting their challenges to the amended redevelopment plan defendants and respondents City of Fullerton, City Council of the City of Fullerton, and Fullerton Redevelopment Agency (collectively, “City”) adopted. The trial court entered judgment without reaching the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims after it denied their application for relief from their failure to timely serve the Attorney General as required by Health and Safety Code section 33501.3.[1]
Section 33501.3 prohibits a court from granting relief in an action challenging a redevelopment plan unless the party files proof it served its pleading and briefs on the Attorney General within three days of filing those documents with the court. Section 33501.3 allows a court to permit a party to serve the Attorney General after this three-day period, but only upon showing (1) good cause for failing to timely serve the Attorney General and (2) the untimely service will not prejudice the Attorney General’s ability to review and possibly participate in the action.

Comments on Friends for Fullerton’s Future v. City of Fullerton

Post Reply

Search thread for Go ►

Download thread as textHTMLGo ►

• 0/5
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment: Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

Submit Advanced