City of Pasadena v. Cohen
Annotate this Case
In the summer of 2011 the Legislature enacted legislation primarily within the Health and Safety Code, that barred any new redevelopment agency obligations, and established procedures for the windup and dissolution of the obligations of the nearly 400 redevelopment agencies then existing. This case stemmed from a dispute arising out of a process the Court of Appeal called the “Great Dissolution.” Defendant Department of Finance disapproved two items included in the “Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule” (ROPS) of plaintiff City of Pasadena. It was determined that these were not enforceable obligations of the Pasadena redevelopment agency. Both obligations were set to expire in 2014; the first involved reimbursement for pension bonds and the other for subsidized housing bonds. The Department previously had approved these two items in ROPS I and II. The City filed this suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against defendant Ana Matosantos in her official capacity as director of the Department. The trial court granted the City’s application for a preliminary injunction, finding that the City had some likelihood of prevailing on the merits, and had a significant risk of irreparable harm otherwise. The trial court ordered defendant Auditor-Controller of Los Angeles County (L.A. Auditor-Controller) to sequester the funds for the two disapproved obligations pending a trial on the merits, and to refrain from distributing them to the taxing entities that are otherwise entitled to the remainder of the property tax proceeds payable to the successor agency. Defendant Matosantos alone filed the notice of appeal in this case. On plenary review, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court was incorrect to yoke declaratory and injunctive relief together. The Court vacated the order with directions either to dismiss the action (with or without leave to amend) or to construe the City’s pleading as one for traditional mandate and proceed accordingly.
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.