CITIZENS FOR AMENDING PROPOSITION L et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF POMONA, Defendant and Appellant., 28 Cal. App. 5th 1159

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-A city resident and a citizens' organization had public interest standing to pursue their mandamus action that alleged the city's adoption of an ordinance, which purported to amend the city's development agreement with an advertising company, exceeded the city's power, because it violated a ballot initiative prohibiting the construction of additional billboards within city limits, and constituted an abuse of discretion; [2]-The advertising company was not an indispensable party to the litigation, as its interests would be adequately protected; [3]-The trial court did not err in concluding the purported amendment of the agreement was a new agreement or in finding the city violated a duty to comply with the ballot initiative, which could not be modified except by vote of the city's citizens; [4]-Plaintiffs were properly awarded attorney fees under Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5.