Ari Miller, dba Camden Development, Ltd. v. Economic Development Agency for the City of San Bernardino
Published: Apr. 11, 1998 | Result Date: Nov. 12, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: SCV32971 Bench Decision – $0
Judge
Court
San Bernardino Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
James C. Fedalen
(HFL Law Group LLP)
Facts
In 1994, the City of San Bernardino, through its Community Development Commission and Economic Development Agency, loaned money to plaintiff Ari Miller to develop certain property in accordance with the agency's redevelopment plans. The plaintiff encountered financial problems and asked for a modification of the Owner Participation Loan Agreement (OPLA) and restructuring of the loan. Per plaintiff, the City Council, acting as its Redevelopment Commission, made an offer to restructure the loan which was accepted by plaintiff. Then, City Council members subsequently changed composition and the EDA staff refused to go forward with the agreement. According to defendant, the EDA was authorized to restructure the loan within certain parameters, plaintiff spent months negotiating the different terms and an offer was made which the plaintiff rejected. Thereafter, the EDA maintained that its authority to execute a new agreement expired and the restructuring of the loan did not occur. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant based on a breach of contract theory of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The settlement discussions were not disclosed.
Damages
The plaintiff sought specific performance and, per defendant, sought compensatory damages in the amount of $800,000.
Other Information
The decision was rendered approximately one year and two months after the case was filed. A hearing on defendant's motion for summary judgment was held on Nov. 12, 1997, before Judge Christopher Warner, resulting in the reported decision. The court found that there was no triable issue of material fact and granted the summary judgment as a matter of law. Per the defendant, the plaintiff's claim was essentially one for damages, despite the fact that they pled for specific performance, and the plaintiff could not establish an element of the claim because they did not file a claim pursuant to Government Code º900 et seq.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390