Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co.

15 Citing cases

  1. L.A. Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth. v. S. Cal. Gas Co.

    No. B288686 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2021)

    In the past, when Metro or its predecessors engaged in construction projects requiring the relocation of SoCalGas's pipelines, Metro routinely reimbursed SoCalGas's costs. (See Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 658, 662 (Pasadena Metro) [previously, Metro routinely agreed to pay costs of utility relocations].) 4.

  2. Riverside Cnty. Transp. Comm'n v. S. Cal. Gas Co.

    54 Cal.App.5th 823 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 14 times

    In California, Public Utilities Code section 6297 ( section 6297 ) provides: "The grantee [of a franchise] shall remove or relocate without expense to the municipality any facilities installed, used, and maintained under the franchise if and when made necessary by any lawful change of grade, alignment, or width of any public street, way, alley, or place, including the construction of any subway or viaduct, by the municipality." It has been said that "[s]ection 6297 codifies the common law rule[ ] ...." ( Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 658, 664, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 556.) Nevertheless, it differs from the common law rule in several respects.

  3. Hubbard v. Coastal Comm'n

    38 Cal.App.5th 119 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 5 times

    The fundamental rule is to ascertain the Legislature's intent in order to give effect to the purpose of the law. ( Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 658, 663–664, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 556 ( Pasadena Metro Blue Line ).) We first examine the words of the statute and try to give effect to the usual, ordinary import of the language while not rendering any language surplusage.

  4. Madrigal v. Victim Comp. & Gov't Claims Bd.

    6 Cal.App.5th 1108 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 9 times

    The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain the Legislature's intent in order to give effect to the purpose of the law. (Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 658, 663–664, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 556 (Pasadena Metro Blue Line ).) We first examine the words of the statute and try to give effect to the usual, ordinary import of the language while not rendering any language surplusage.

  5. Kalnel Gardens, LLC v. City of L.A.

    3 Cal.App.5th 927 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 6 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (Automotive Funding Group, Inc. v. Garamendi (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 846, 851, 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 912.) The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain the Legislature's intent in order to give effect to the purpose of the law. (Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 658, 663–664, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 556 (Pasadena Metro Blue Line ).) We first examine the words of the statute and try to give effect to the usual, ordinary import of the language while not rendering any language surplusage.

  6. BMC W. Corp. v. Town Ctr. Courtyard, LLC

    No. D076123 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2020)

    (Coral Construction, Inc v. City and County of San Francisco (2010) 50 Cal.4th 315, 336; Navarrete v. Meyer (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1283.) We assume the trial court's role and redetermine the merits of the motion (Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 658, 663), considering all of the evidence presented by the parties (except for evidence that the trial court properly excluded), liberally construing the evidence in support of Town, the party opposing summary judgment, and resolving all doubts about whether triable issues of material fact exist in Town's favor. (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1039; Caliber Paving Company, Inc. v. Rexford Industrial Realty and Management, Inc. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 175, 180.) "Courts deciding motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not weigh the evidence but must instead view it in the light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party."

  7. Vidales v. Soudah

    No. B263227 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2016)

    The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain the Legislature's intent in order to give effect to the purpose of the law. (Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 658, 663-664 (Pasadena Metro Blue Line).) We first examine the words of the statute and try to give effect to the usual, ordinary import of the language while not rendering any language surplusage.

  8. People v. Tingcungco

    237 Cal.App.4th 249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 30 times
    In Tingcungco, despite this legislative history, the surety argued "that (1) section 1305, subdivision (g) should be read to extend the bond exoneration period while the prosecutor decides whether to extradite, and (2) section 1305, subdivision (h) should be expanded to allow for tolling in that situation as well."

    STANDARD OF REVIEW Because we interpret a statute based on undisputed facts, we are not bound by the trial court's interpretation of the statute, and instead decide the correct interpretation as a matter of law. (Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 658, 663-664, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 556.) The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature in order to effectuate the purpose of the law.

  9. Doe v. Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego

    178 Cal.App.4th 1382 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 6 times

    We look first to the words of the statute and try to give effect to the usual and ordinary meaning of the language in a way that does not render any language mere surplusage. ( Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 658, 663-664 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 556].) "Surplusage" means words or phrases that are unnecessary or lack meaning.

  10. P.S. v. San Bernardino City Unified School Dist.

    174 Cal.App.4th 953 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 2 times

    ' [Citation]." ( Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 658, 663-664 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 556].) In the deletion of the language, "child care custodian," plaintiff perceives an intent to undermine the holding of Randi W. The California Supreme Court stated that a "child care custodian's" duty to report was limited to those within its "custodial care."