Templeton Action Com. v. County of San Luis Obispo
Annotate this CasePlaintiff seeks to set aside the county's decision to allow a development. The court concluded, among other things, that the developer, an indispensable party, may assert the statute of limitations even though it did not comply with the so-called fictitious name statute, Business and Professions Code section 17900. Plaintiff filed a petition for mandate and administrative mandate attacking the county's decision approving a subdivision application, but failed to serve the real party in interest within 90 days pursuant to Government Code section 66499.37. The trial court sustained the county's and the real party in interest's demurrers without leave to amend. Because the court affirmed the judgment on the merits, the court need not consider defendants' motion to dismiss based on defects in plaintiffs' opening brief. The court denied plaintiffs' request for judicial notice.
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.