Saldana v. County of Santa Cruz
Filed 4/14/06 Saldana v. County of Santa Cruz CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ERNESTINA SALDANA, et al., H028899
Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Santa Cruz County
Superior Court
v. No. CV 149432)
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
_____________________________________/
Appellants purport to appeal from the superior court's order granting a writ of mandate on respondents' third cause of action. The superior court's order did not resolve the other six causes of action in respondents' complaint. Respondents assert that the superior court's order is not an appealable order, and they seek dismissal of the appeal. We conclude that the superior court's order was a nonappealable interlocutory order, and we dismiss the purported appeal.
I. Background
In February 2005, respondents filed their second amended petition for mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. The first and second causes of action in this pleading sought mandamus relief based on respondents' claims that the housing element of the County's general plan suffered from substantive flaws. The third cause of action sought mandamus relief based on respondents' claim that the housing element was invalid due to procedural flaws in the means by which it had been adopted. The fourth and fifth causes of action sought injunctive relief based on respondents' allegations that the County's substantively inadequate housing element was discriminatory. The sixth cause of action sought declaratory and injunctive relief based on allegations that the housing element was substantively flawed. The seventh cause of action sought injunctive relief against the County's alleged illegal expenditure of taxpayer funds.
The superior court issued an alternative writ of mandate on the first and third causes of action and set them for hearing in March 2005. The court ultimately held hearings devoted solely to the third cause of action in March and April 2005. In May 2005, the court issued a written order â€
