RECENT CALIFORNIA DECISIONS

April 2006

To read this entire item of approximately 1350 words online now in PDF format: Click here to read this item if you are an existing subscriber to this publication. Click here to purchase the full text of this item to read now (price: $25). To subscribe to this publication and immediately access all its archives including this item, select the relevant publication under 'Catalogue' in the left-hand column PLEASE NOTE: to read PDFs on www.argento.com you must be using Version 5 of Acrobat Reader or Adobe Reader. If you have an earlier version you can download the latest free of charge by clicking here

First District Finds Property Owner Is Not Entitled to Attorney Fees where the Award Would Discourage Local Enforcement Agencies from Protecting the Public’s Interest
City and County of San Francisco, et al. v. Ballard

On January 10, 2006, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s judgment barring the City and County of San Francisco’s claims that a property owner’s (Ballard) 84-unit brick and woodframe building was a public nuisance because its partial sprinkler system was not in compliance with the fire prevention statutes for high-rise structures. The court held that because the building did not qualify as a high-rise building under § 13210(b) of the Health and Safety Code, it was therefore not subject to the fire prevention requirements for high-rise structures. The court also reversed the trial court’s award of attorney fees to Ballard because the statute only applied to receivership proceedings, which did not occur in the present case.