A legal challenge being brought forth by residents trying to stop a housing development off Wiley Canyon Road is asking questions about who’s actually developing the project while the developer is moving to strike the effort, claiming the wrong party is being named.
On Wednesday, Judge Jon Takasugi ordered the case continued until next week, when he’s scheduled to rule on a motion to strike the residents’ writ, an objection to the filing by the group of residents on the grounds that they have the wrong party in the lawsuit.
The residents who sued to stop the project, claiming in a lawsuit the city has essentially authorized the build to a “phantom entity,” said Friday the judge was using the time “for an in-depth review of the complicated issues.”
The city, which is the official defendant in the action as the authorizing party, has declined to comment due to the situation being a part of active litigation.
The legal questions revolve around a project the Santa Clarita City Council approved in November, after a handful of hearings that pushed the city to its limit under state law for how many times a housing project can be publicly reviewed, with five separate discussions.
The Wiley Canyon Road project has been entitled by the City Council to Wiley Canyon LLC for 232 condos in two-story buildings, and 120 assisted-living units.
While some residents have spoken up in praise of the promised traffic improvements the project is expected to bring, the Calgrove Corridor Coalition has filed a writ seeking to stop the city’s approval due to a myriad of concerns.
One of the latest questions now involves which entity the project was entitled to, a question further confused by the project’s counsel in court this week, according to the Calgrove Corridor Coalition.
“(R. Weston) Monroe asserts that the city’s reluctance to clearly identify an existing corporate entity, instead substituting in a law firm that often represents Lennar Corp. as the real party in interest, has contributed to the confusion surrounding this critical issue in the proceedings. He believes that transparency and accountability are essential to maintaining public trust in local government,” according to an email Friday from Annette Lucas, who’s also a part of the coalition, on behalf of the coalition. “The court’s continuance provides an opportunity to clarify the matter and ensures that the case may be evaluated on its merits.”
John Musella, a spokesman for Lennar, said Friday afternoon that he was not aware of the company’s involvement in the project, but he also said that wouldn’t preclude the builder’s involvement in some capacity. Miami-based Lennar is the nation’s second-largest builder by volume, and could represent significant resources for the defendants, which include the city and Wiley Canyon LLC.
One of the lingering questions for the plaintiffs, including Monroe, is what exactly is Wiley Canyon LLC.
“The case brought by R. Weston Monroe brings (California Environmental Quality Act) and General Plan issues surrounding the general plan and complains that the approvals are void (from the start) since the real part named by the city is a phantom that does not exist in California,” Lucas wrote.
A call to the phone number for the law firm that represented the defendants in court this week was not immediately returned Friday.
The “confusion” Lucas referenced has to do with a motion filed Wednesday.
Attorneys from Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance, who were “specially appearing” on behalf of Wiley Canyon LLC, filed “a request for judicial notice in support of specially appearing Wiley Canyon LLC’s motion to dismiss (Monroe’s) verified petition for writ of mandate,” and a motion to vacate an amended complaint due to the incorrect name, with the real party of interest listed as Royal Clark Development. Royal Clark formerly tied to Tom Clark, the project’s original developer of the project who died in January. City officials previously indicated Clark’s partner on the project, Sheridan Ebbert Development, would be involved.
“The grounds for the motion are that petitioner failed to timely join and effect service on
Wiley, and Wiley is a necessary and indispensable party that cannot now be joined due to the expiration of the applicable statutes of limitations,” according to the defendant’s motion.
Calgrove Corridor Coalition members said previous efforts to track down Wiley Canyon LLC led them to a vacant office in Sylmar. Online records obtained by The Signal from the California Secretary of State’s website show that a Dec. 28 filing on behalf of Wiley Canyon LLC updated a filing that hadn’t been current since 2021, moving the entity’s address from Telfair Avenue in Sylmar to the Pacific Palisades.
Takasugi could issue his ruling Thursday, when the case is due back in Department 17 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Downtown Los Angeles.
