Supreme Court of California

In an action by the City of Dinuba Redevelopment Agency to recover misallocated tax revenue to which it was statutorily entitled, section 860.2 of the Tort Claims Act does not bar the Agency's action because the Agency does not seek money damages for an "injury" as defined by the Act. Further, because the Agency is seeking to enforce a mandatory duty imposed by statute, the remedy of mandamus is available.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/19/2007
• Published 07/19/2007

Judges

• MORENO, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson, Steven R. Meyers, Andrea J. Saltzman, Joseph M. Quinn, San Francisco;  Tuttle & McCloskey and Daniel T. McCloskey, for Plaintiffs and Appellants., McDonough Holland & Allen, T. Brent Hawkins and Daniel M. Wolk, Sacramento, for California Redevelopment Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants., Jarvis, Fay & Doporto and Benjamin P. Fay, Oakland, for League of California Cities as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Thomas F. Winfield III and Michael H. Wallenstein, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents.