Animal Protection & Rescue League v. City of San Diego
Annotate this CaseIn November 2012, respondents Animal Protection and Rescue League, Friends of the Seals, Ellen Shively, Deborah Saracini, Shannon Player, Robb Meade, Marilies Schoepflin, Dorota Valli, and Jerry Horna (collectively "APRL") brought a petition for writ of mandate against appellants City of San Diego and its Planning Commission ("the City"), coupled with a request for injunctive and declaratory relief. In its petition, APRL noted that the present litigation was related to a long-running dispute concerning whether the City should maintain a year-round guideline rope at the La Jolla Children's Pool for the purpose of protecting harbor seals from humans. APRL sought an order requiring the City to vacate and set aside the Planning Commission's denial of a permit for the guideline rope and to reinstate the findings of a hearing officer in support of the permit. Approximately three months later, the City filed an answer in which it confessed error and conceded that the "Planning Commission erred when it denied the Site Development Permit for an annual rope barrier." Friends of the Children's Pool (FOCP) moved to intervene and was granted the right to file an opposition to APRL's anticipated filing of a motion for entry of judgment on its writ petition. The trial court held a hearing on APRL's motion for entry of judgment at which APRL, FOCP, and the City appeared. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court entered an order granting APRL's petition for writ of mandate. The trial court then entered a judgment granting APRL's petition for writ of mandate and issued a corresponding peremptory writ of mandate. The court would also award APRL attorney fees and costs. The City appealed the grant of the writ of mandate and the attorney fee order. Reversing only the award of $555 in costs, the Court of Appeal reduced the amount APRL received at the conclusion of the district court case. The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the district court's grant of the writ, and affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.