City of Cerritos v. CaliforniaAnnotate this Case
Plaintiffs were a group of cities in their municipal capacities and the successor agencies to several redevelopment agencies that have since been dissolved, multiple community development commissions, a private nonprofit housing corporation, and an individual taxpayer. Plaintiffs filed a combined complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief and petition for writ of mandate challenging the constitutionality of Assembly Bill 26 and Assembly Bill 27, which laid the groundwork for the demise of California’s nearly 400 redevelopment agencies in order to partially address a declared fiscal emergency in 2011. The Supreme Court declared Assembly Bill 1X 26 constitutional and a valid exercise of the Legislature’s power. It struck down Assembly Bill 1X 27, which would have allowed redevelopment agencies to continue operating under certain conditions. As reformed by the court, Assembly Bill 1X 26 required all redevelopment agencies to dissolve effective February 1, 2012. Plaintiffs then sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin Assembly Bill 1X 26 on additional constitutional grounds not considered in "Matosantos I." The trial court denied plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction request concluding they were unlikely to prevail on the merits. On appeal, plaintiffs argued Assembly Bill 1X 26 violated at least seven different constitutional provisions. Although additional parties were originally named in plaintiffs’ complaint and petition, only defendants the State of California and the Director of Finance in her official capacity filed a brief in this appeal (the State). The State argued plaintiffs’ challenge was moot because redevelopment agencies have been dissolved. While the Court of Appeal disagreed that dissolution of the state’s redevelopment agencies moots this appeal, it nevertheless reject plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges to Assembly Bill 1X 26, and affirmed the trial court’s order denying the preliminary injunction.