• Online Edition
  • About
  • Support The Sheet
  • Contact

The Sheet

  • News
    • Mountain Town News
    • Sports and Outdoors
  • Arts and Life
  • Opinion/Editorial
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Dining

DEMURRER DENIED

  • by Jack Benham
  • in News
  • — 1 Mar, 2019

Alameda Court rules on LADWP’s demurrer

On Friday, February 22, Alameda Superior Court denied the City of Los Angeles’ request for a demurrer against Mono County’s suit regarding the waterless ranch leases. The court held the initial demurrer hearing on Friday, January 18. 

A demurrer is filed by a defense, in this case Los Angeles, and claims that a petitioner’s, Mono County, complaint is invalid. 

A court can find a complaint invalid for a number of reasons. In this case, the City cited two legal reasons for the request: the causes of action were too broad and statute of limitations had passed. The court dismissed both.

Regarding the City’s claim that the county’s complaint was too broad, the court stated, “The City asserts that Mono must identify the leases with greater certainty — dates, parties, properties, etc. The allegations in the complaint are adequate. The City’s demurrer states that for purposes of the demurrer it has identified ‘only operative leases in Mono County that the FAP could be referencing.’ … Therefore, although the petition could be more specific, the petition has placed the City on notice of the allegations against it.” 

The City claimed that the statute of limitations on the county’s claim that the City did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) before switching to the waterless leases had expired, making the complaint invalid. 

The statute of limitations for CEQA is 180 days. The City claimed the CEQA review period was initiated in 2010 when the City approved the leases. Mono County claimed that the review started when the City notified ranchers of the waterless leases on May 1, 2018 and they had 180 days from that date to file their complaint, which they filed on September 27. The court found that the City’s notification of reducing the allocation of water on the leases constituted a significant change in its practice and therefore had to heed CEQA.

Click here for the rest of paper.

Share

Topics: LADWPMono County

— Jack Benham

You may also like...

  • Drink me dry and call me dusty 25 Mar, 2011
  • INYO WANTS A PUMP SLUMP 15 May, 2025
  • LADWP seeks best odds for “water grab” 3 Apr, 2012
  • LADWP updates Inyo Board on renewable energy projects 19 Apr, 2014
  • Previous story HORRORSCOPES
  • Next story BLUHM BACK TO WORK
  • Special Publications

  • Recent Posts

    • GET A PIECE OF THE ROCK
    • OBITUARY: BRIAN SIEBERT 1973-2026
    • SEAL OF APPROVAL
    • GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME … $1.1M
    • IT’S A HARD KNOCK LIFE FOR BEARS
  • Special Publications

  • News
    • Mountain Town News
    • Sports and Outdoors
  • Arts and Life
  • Opinion/Editorial
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Dining

© 2026 THE SHEET. DEVELOPED BY PENDERWORTH.