Skip to main content


District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

James H. SIBBET, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CITY OF PASADENA, California, Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Pasadena, California, Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 29767.

Decided: October 28, 1965

Gaston, Keltner & Adair, by Sidney A. Adair, Los Angeles, for appellant. Eugene B. Jacobs, Gen. Counsel for Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pasadena, Cal., Wendell R. Thompson, City Atty., Fred R. Metheny, Asst. City Atty., Evelynn M. Finn, Robert A. Neher, Deputy City Attys., for respondents.

Respondents have moved to dismiss the appeal on two grounds: (1) the notice designating the record on appeal was not timely filed and not properly served; (2) the record on appeal shows that the appeal is without merit.

The first ground for dismissal is purely technical, and the deficiencies there complained of would be readily waived for an appeal which otherwise appeared to have merit. However, this is not such a case.

The motion to dismiss for lack of merit apparent on the face of the record appears solidly based.

This action was brought in the Superior Court by a taxpayer to invalidate a Pasadena ordinance approving a redevelopment project in Pasadena. Defendants were the City of Pasadena and the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pasadena. Such taxpayer suits are controlled, procedurally, by sections 860 to 870 of the Code of Civil Procedure, sections added to the code in 1961 to regulate the procedure for testing the validity of community redevelopment projects. Under these sections, an interested person may file an action within 60 days to test the validity of any such project. He is required to serve the public agency and to publish summons to all interested parties in the manner prescribed by the statute. If he fails to complete such publication of summons and file proof of publication within 60 days of the filing of his complaint, the action shall be forthwith dismissed on motion of the public unless good cause for his faliure to publish is shown.

The Superior Court dismissed this action for failure to publish summons in accordance with the statute. Appellant at that time presented no justification for his failure to publish nor did he move the trial court for an oppurtunity to repair his delinquency.

In this proceeding appellant has filed a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss the appeal, but has advanced no real argument why his suit should not have been dismissed below, nor why it should not be dismissed here. In our view the appeal discloses lack of merit on its face. Ample authority for dismissal is set forth in respondents' brief. (Robbins v. Sonoma Co. Flood Control and Water Conservation, District 138 Cal.App.2d 291, 292 P.2d 52.) Dismissal is so ordered.

FLEMING, Justice.

ROTH, P. J., and HERNDON, J., concur.

Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law

Docket No: Civ. 29767.

Decided: October 28, 1965

Court: District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

Sign up

Learn About the Law

Get help with your legal needs

FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.

Learn more about the law
Copied to clipboard