Friday, April 10, 2026
Page 3
Nuisance Suit Based on DWP Cutting Off Power Reinstated
Court of Appeal Says Elements of Tort Have Been Adequately Pled
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district has reinstated a cause of action for nuisance against the City of Los Angeles for cutting the power line to a building in southeast Los Angeles, despite bills for electrical services being paid up-to-date, allegedly causing the property to become unrentable and depriving the owner of the benefits of a five-year lease that had been expected to soon go into effect with the operator of a cannabis business.
Landowner BV Industries, LLC (“BVI”) and another entity allege in their third amended complaint that the city’s Department of Water & Power (“DWP”) snipped the wire in order the render the property of low value so that its investors could buy it cheaply, then engage in lucrative marijuana sales once power was restored.
The reason given at the time power was cut off was that the building had a connection with three wires rather than four, as presently required. Rewiring would cost about $400,000.
At issue is whether a cause of action was validly pled for a private nuisance.
Civil Code Sections
Civil Code §3479 provides:
“Anything which is injurious to health...or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property...is a nuisance.”
A private nuisance is defined by Civil Code §§3480 and 3481 as one that does not affect “at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons.”
Justice Anne Richardson of Div. Two authored the unpublished opinion, filed Wednesday, reinstating the action to the extend a private nuisance is alleged. She said that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy Lewis correctly sustained demurrer without leave to amend to other causes of action, but that one survives.
She noted that governmental immunity does not bar causes of action for nuisance.
Allegations of Complaint
The operative pleading, drafted by Mar Vista attorney Randall B. Rich, alleges:
“On or about May 28, 2017, the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, without warning, without notice and without any legitimate reason, PHYSIC ALLY CUT PLAINTIFFS’ POWER LINES FROM THE TRANSFORMER and thereby completely cut-off power from the Property - rendering it unusable and useless.”
It goes on to say:
“By physically cutting off plaintiffs’ power lines, defendants caused plaintiff BVI to lose its tenant who had a 5 year lease of $37,500.00/month….
“In a meeting at the property with LADWP executives. City attorney. Plaintiff Electrical Engineer and Attorneys-DWP told plaintiff ‘Don’t you understand what’s going on here? Why arc you being so difficult? Just sell your properties and move elsewhere.’ ”
The pleading continues:
“Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendants’ motivation to force plaintiff BVI to sell its Property is due to the Property’s Cannabis entitlements that have tremendously increased the value of the Property and its strategic location in the heart of Downtown Los Angeles in the center of an industrial area away from sensitive uses that prevent this type of business.
“This is why LADWP and their investors coveted the Property and sought to pressure plaintiff to sell the Property and also disclose that there is no power service-which would devalue the Property to cents on the dollar, providing DWP investors who are aware of this condition to acquire the Property for cents on the dollar. After they gain ownership of the Property , LADWP would then come and re-connect the power lines and restore service and the new owner backed by LADWP would then enjoy the illegal enrichment of the instant power increase with all the Cannabis entitlements that are attached to the Property.”
BVI’s property is located south of Slauson and west of Central.
The complaint alleges that the defendants “proximately caused plaintiffs damages exceed $150,000,000.00.”
Lewis’s Ruling
On May 8, 2024, Lewis, in sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend to the cause of action for nuisance, declared that “Plaintiffs do not identify a protected interest harmed by Defendants’ action and do not allege that Defendants actions were a substantial and unreasonable interference with their use and enjoyment of their property.”
The judge sustained demurrers to all seven causes of action without leave to amend, but gave BVI an opportunity to plead again if it could come up with a new theory. It did not amend and the action weas dismissed.
In reversing, with respect to the cause of action for nuisance, Richardson said the third amended complaint “does state a cause of action for private nuisance against DWP for cutting off power to the Property under the circumstances alleged” because all elements of the tort are pled. She recited these allegations by saying:
“(1) Plaintiffs own or lease the Property. (2) DWP acted to deprive them of electric service there. (3) DWP’s action was intentional and unreasonable. (4) Not having electric service substantially interfered with plaintiffs’ use of the Property. (5) The prolonged denial of service is of a character that would reasonably annoy or disturb an ordinary person. (6) Plaintiffs opposed DWP’s conduct. (7) Plaintiffs suffered harm as a result of DWP’s conduct. (8) DWP’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ harm. (9) The harm DWP caused plaintiffs outweighs the social utility of denying them power for ‘[no] legitimate reason.’ ”
Skepticism Indicated
Expressing skepticism as to BVI’s ability to prove its allegations, she said:
“The trial court erred in dismissing this cause of action. In recognizing plaintiffs’ cause of action, we do not pass on any possible defenses DWP may have….Moreover, to the extent plaintiffs’ allegations turn out not to have a factual basis, there are proper procedures for addressing this, including summary judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, or, if otherwise warranted, sanctions pursuant to section 128.7. Demurrer, however, is not the appropriate procedure to challenge plaintiffs’ allegations.”
The case is BV Industries v. City of Los Angeles, B340042.
Representing BVI on appeal, in addition to Rich, was Daniel Joshua Enowitz of the West Los Angeles firm of Marcus, Watanabe & Enowitz.
Acting for the city weas Deputy City Attorney Joseph C. Graven, joined by Charles H. Abbott, Alena Shamos and Alan A. Sozi of the downtown Los Angeles firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company