City of LA v. Super. Ct.
Filed 7/7/06 City of LA v. Super. Ct. CA 2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| CITY OF LOS ANGELES, acting by and through the LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent. THOSE CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS, LONDON, et al., Real Parties in Interest. | B189934 (Super. Ct. No. BC296415 (Consolidated with BC303460, BC307777, BC318325, BC325365, BC325857, BC325917, BC325974, and BC326028.) |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Ralph W. Dau, Judge. Petition for writ of mandate granted.
Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Richard M. Brown, General Counsel, Water and Power, and Lisa S. Berger, Deputy City Attorney, for Petitioner.
No appearance by Respondent.
Hahn & Bolson, Jeffrey T. Bolson and David Denton, Bragg & Kuluva, Steven H. Yuster, Lager Weingarten, LLP, Alex Weingarten, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, David Levy for Real Parties in Interest.
Defendant, the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, challenges the respondent court's March 3, 2006 order granting plaintiffs' summary adjudication motions. This case arises from a fire that occurred on December 17, 2003, at the Hollywood Center Studios (the building). Plaintiffs filed summary adjudication motions on their inverse condemnation claims which, if successful, would establish defendant's liability. Plaintiffs presented evidence the fire was caused by a faulty transformer that exploded and sprayed hot oil onto the building. In opposition, defendant presented declarations demonstrating the fire started in the building and the malfunctioning transformer had nothing to do with the conflagration.
Defendant presented non-speculative declarations from properly qualified witnesses which indicated, based on the pattern of the initial ignition and subsequent spread of the fire, that the source of the flames was not the malfunctioning transformer. Hence, there is a triable controversy as to whether defendant's transformer was a legal cause of the fire. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 856 [â€
