Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

Tacoma Promenade v. Tacoma, City of

Citation: 33 ELR 20026
No. No. 01-35143, 45 F. Appx. 620/(9th Cir., 08/20/2002)

The court affirms a district court holding that a city did not breach a contract with a developer by failing to obtain the wetlands permits necessary for the development of an apartment complex and shopping center. The court first holds that nothing in the contract obligated the city to obtain the wetlands permits. Although the city had an obligation to cooperate with the developer on such matters, the contract language unambiguously makes clear that the developer was intended to obtain whatever permits were needed for its planned development. It may be that the developer was not obligated to get the permits, but failing to do so, it has no contractual basis to blame the city if it could not complete its planned development. Additionally, the city did not breach the implied covenant of good faith.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Bruce J. Lurie
Lurie, Zepeda, Schmalz & Hogan
9107 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 800, Beverly Hills CA 90210
(310) 274-8700

Counsel for Defendant
Ronald Leigh
City Attorney's Office
747 Market St., Tacoma WA 98402
(253) 591-5885

Tags: