The Los Angeles Superior Court today denied a request by the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority to dismiss the City’s lawsuit over the constitutionality of Measure A. Measure A was passed by Burbank voters last October and severely limits the City’s ability to approve any Airport facilities until certain noise and growth limits are imposed.

Judge Munoz rejected the Authority’s argument that the City should have sued someone else, and concluded that there is a genuine controversy between the City and the Authority over the application of Measure A. "If this action is not allowed to proceed, the City-Airport operations will soon be in a state of paralysis and defendant Authority will soon be suing the City," Judge Munoz concluded. "Thus, it appears that there is an actual controversy of great public interest between the parties that the court should decide," the judge wrote in his two-paragraph opinion.

The City filed suit in October requesting that the court clarify whether and how Measure A could be enforced by the City. Shortly after Measure A passed, the Authority wrote the City urging the City to file a lawsuit to determine the legality of the initiative. When the City filed such a suit a week later, the Authority asked that it be dismissed, arguing that the court had no jurisdiction since the Authority and the City agreed on the legal principles governing the constitutionality of Measure A.

Perry M. Rosen, Special Legal Counsel for the City, told the Court that the City’s purpose in filing the suit was not to attack Measure A but to seek guidance from the Court. "We do not believe that all of Measure A is illegal but we need to know what portions are legal to avoid gridlock," he noted. He explained that the Authority is the party most affected by Measure A and that this lawsuit is the most efficient way to seek the clarification that the City needs.

During oral argument, Judge Munoz asked why no proponent of Measure A had accepted the City’s offer to fund their intervention and asked if a representative of the ROAR group was in the courtroom. Counsel for both sides pointed out that Howard Rothenbach, chairman of ROAR, was in attendance.

As a result of the Court’s ruling, the case will now proceed to trial or final judgment. The judge set a 10-day deadline for the Authority to file an answer. During oral argument, however, the Authority’s counsel said that the Airport Commission had directed him not to file an answer or any other papers in the lawsuit and would let the Court decide the case by default without the benefit of any arguments by the Authority on the legality of Measure A. "It is in everyone’s interest – the City, the Authority, our residents and the travelling public – for this case to be resolved quickly and finally," said City Manager Bud Ovrom.

After the hearing, City Manager Bud Ovrom noted that, "The City felt it had no choice but to seek guidance from a court after Measure A was passed by the voters. While the City faced considerable criticism for bringing this lawsuit, we are pleased that the Court agreed that we need a way to resolve our dilemma. We are looking for a fast conclusion to this lawsuit."

This court ruling does not address the merits of Measure A. City Attorney Dennis Barlow explained that, "The court only ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear the case. This is not a ruling on the merits of the initiative, but it does pave the way for the court to decide on the merits later on. We are hopeful that this case will be put on a fast track so that we can have a final ruling sometime this spring. The Authority’s rights will be decided in this lawsuit and we hope that it will not sit on the sidelines and let the Court decide the legality of Measure A without its involvement."

The City will seek a final ruling on the legal issues in the lawsuit as soon as possible.

# # #