Residents of the 10700 block of Farragut Drive, embroiled in a years’ long dispute with Grace Lutheran Church members who park there, have been handed their third consecutive stinging legal defeat.
A trial court recently ruled that the second of two lawsuits filed by attorney/resident Les Greenberg on behalf of his neighbors and his own household, was meritless. This echoed the earlier findings in the similar first suit filed.
It is not clear whether Mr. Greenberg will appeal further.
The specific claim was that the City Council violated the Brown Act in discussing whether to put the Farragut parking restrictions on the agenda for discussion.
All rulings have been unequivocal in rejecting the plaintiffs’ charge that their action was a matter affecting the public interest. The courts said no.
The plaintiffs alleged that the City Council had no authority to hear an appeal by the church regarding the Farragut Drive parking restrictions.
They asked the city to stop taking further actions in that regard.
Keeping the parking restriction at status quo would directly benefit the plaintiffs, the Farragut Drive homeowners.
Briefly, the plaintiffs sought personal relief in the form of a halt to any attempts by the church to undo the long-standing parking restrictions.
An appeals court also rejected the residents’ contention that the city never could reconsider long-standing parking restrictions no matter how much conditions had changed.
(To be continued)
2 Comments on “Greenberg, Farragut Residents Shut Out Again”
What an incredible waste of the city’s money that is being spent on defending these lawsuits. Money that could have spent in any number of useful ways to benefit all of the residents of the City of Culver City.
In reviewing whether the Council violated the Brown Act, the Appellate Court held that the Church did not have the right to appeal the parking regulations regarding a “parking zone” because it is not classified as a “resident” and only residents can challenge the regulations. The Court held that the regulations are silent on the type of challenge the Church raised, i.e., a request to review the regulations. The Court held it was proper for the Council to review the parking regulations. The Court stated it rejected plaintiffs’ interpretation of the regulations that the Council could never reconsider long-standing parking restrictions no matter how much conditions have changed, where a challenge came from someone other than the “residents.” The Plaintiff’s argument, in effect, that they have a “vested right” to the parking restrictions on Farragut was rejected by the Court. Finally, the Court found that the Plaintiffs are seeking a private benefit and not a benefit for the public as a whole; thereby failing to fulfill a significant condition necessary to challenge the Council under the Brown Act, to wit, the benefit being sought must benefit to the general public and not the personal interests of the residents on Farragut.