Gomez v. City of Santa Ana
Filed 4/20/06 Gomez v. City of Santa Ana CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| ELSA GOMEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SANTA ANA et al., Defendants and Respondents. | G035447 (Super. Ct. No. 03CC08721) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Steven L. Perk, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Moskowitz, Brestoff, Winston & Blinderman, Dennis A. Winston and Barbara S. Blinderman for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Joseph Fletcher, City Attorney, Jose Sandoval, Senior Assistant City Attorney and Michael Vigliotta, Deputy City Attorney for Defendants and Respondents.
* * *
I. INTRODUCTION
Elsa Gomez sued the City of Santa Ana for diverting revenue specifically dedicated to promoting and improving the city's downtown business district for other uses, including security and maintenance. During discovery prior to a summary judgment motion brought by the city, it was revealed that the city was in the process of transferring district funds into its own coffers. The summary judgment motion was denied and a settlement soon followed. In the settlement, the city promised to keep hands off the accumulated district revenue and use it for the purposes contemplated when the district was first established in 1984, which include promotion and marketing.
Then Gomez sought attorney fees under the private attorney general statute, section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court, however, concluded that because a business association that had been administering district funds had been disbanded prior to the instigation of the litigation, a priori Gomez was not the prevailing party.
We reverse. As we show below, Gomez obtained significant relief on a significant issue -- use of the district funds for promotion and marketing subsumed by the city's promise to stay on the straight and narrow as far as the original purposes of the funds. We also show that Gomez satisfied all other requirements of the private attorney general statute, and is therefore â€
