Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS107637, Dzintra Janavs, Judge.
ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Peter Bibring, Peter J. Eliasberg, and Mark D. Rosenbaum; Western Center on Law & Poverty, Patrick Dunlevy, Deanna Kitamura, Richard Rothschild, and Lynn Martinez; Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Benjamin Beach, and Tai Glenn; Georgetown Environmental Law & Policy Institute and John D. Echeverria, Pro Hac Vice, for Movants and Appellants.
Costell & Cornelius Law Corporation, Jeffrey Lee Costell, Alexandre Ian Cornelius, and Mitchell E. Rishe for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Appellants are the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), an organization of low income tenants, and the Southern California Association for Non-Profit Housing (SCANPH), a nonprofit organization of developers of affordable housing. Respondents are Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P., and Geoffrey Palmer (jointly, Palmer).
ACORN and SCANPH sought leave to intervene in an underlying action between Palmer and the City of Los Angeles (the City). (Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2007, No. BS107637) (the underlying action).) After their motion for leave to intervene was denied, ACORN and SCANPH filed the present appeal from the order of denial. (Bowles v. Superior Court (1955) 44 Cal.2d 574, 581-582 [order denying a request for leave to intervene is appealable].)
While this appeal was pending, the superior court entered judgment for Palmer in the underlying action, from which the City appealed. (Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles, B206102.) In light of the City’s appeal, we invited the parties herein to submit letter briefs regarding the effect of the City’s appeal on the outcome of the present appeal and whether the present appeal should be removed from the April 2008 calendar. Ultimately, we rescheduled the present appeal to be heard concurrently with the City’s appeal on the June 2009 calendar.
In light of our determination on the merits in the City’s appeal that judgment was properly entered for Palmer, the underlying action has been terminated. We conclude that the present appeal from the order denying the motion for leave to intervene has been rendered moot by the termination of the underlying action and should be dismissed.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot. The parties are to bear their own costs.
We concur: WILLHITE, Acting P.J., MANELLA, J.