1041 20th Street v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2019)

Citation: 1041 20th Street v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2019)
Parent Document: 1041 20th Street v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2019)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2019-07-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4644132/1041-20th-street-v-santa-monica... ↗

Full Text

1,866 chars

16
must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act
that the party asserting the estoppel has a right to believe it was
so intended; (3) the other party must be ignorant of the true state
of facts; and (4) he must rely upon the conduct to his injury.
[Citation.]’” (City of Goleta v. Superior Court (2006) 40 Cal.4th
270, 279; accord, Estill v. County of Shasta (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th
702, 710-711; Attard v. Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa
County (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 1066, 1079.)
       “The doctrine of equitable estoppel may be applied against
the government where justice and right require it.” (Driscoll v.
City of Los Angeles (1967) 67 Cal.2d 297, 306.) “Where, as here, a
party seeks to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel against a
governmental entity, an additional element applies. That is, the
government may not be bound by an equitable estoppel in the
same manner as a private party unless, ‘in the considered view of
a court of equity, the injustice which would result from a failure
to uphold an estoppel is of sufficient dimension to justify any
effect upon public interest or policy which would result from the
raising of an estoppel.’ (Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d
462, 496-497 . . . .)” (City of Oakland v. Oakland Police & Fire
Retirement System (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 210, 240; see Lusardi
Construction Co. v. Aubry (1992) 1 Cal.4th 976, 994-995
[“estoppel will not be applied against the government if to do so
would nullify a strong rule of policy adopted for the benefit of the
public”].)
       However, “principles of estoppel may not be invoked to
directly contravene statutory limitations.” (Medina v. Board of
Retirement (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 864, 869; accord, In re Joshua
G. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 189, 197; Emma Corp. v. Inglewood
Unified School Dist. (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1028-1029; see

Other Sections in This Document (69)

Full Text