A decision by the Cypress Elementary School District that local homeowners say devastated their neighborhood years ago is the subject of a lawsuit alleging the city of Cypress has failed citizens by allowing the school district to violate a conditional use permit and has apparently not been dismissed as was reported to the Council.

The suit stems from when the Cypress School District sold its former site so that it could move into a new building they purchased on Corporate Ave. Following the move, they were left with a dilemma of relocating its MOTT headquarters (Maintenance, Operations, Transportation and Technology) so they could sell their existing property near the intersection of Moody and Ball.

According to the lawsuit filed by a group of residents who live near the former Swain Elementary School, the district’s decision to convert the school site into MOTT, facilitated by the City of Cypress’ lack of enforcement of its original conditional use permit, granted for the specific use of the site as a school, have caused them harm.

With the school district operating a transportation and maintenance facility in a residential neighborhood, and the city refusing to enforce the terms of it’s original CUP, residents say they are now confronted with semi-trucks, maintenance vehicles and general industrial activity that they believe they should not be exposed to in a residential area.

Residents Bob and Wanda Youngsma, whose longtime residence is across the street from the MOTT, have become the face of the lawsuit, yet there are dozens of plaintiff residents also listed in the suit who believe the local government’s action devalued their lifelong investments.

Among other things, plaintiff attorney Phillip R. Geurts is asking the state’s Superior Court for injunctive relief from the MOTT activities, damages and other provisions in their petition against the Cypress School District and the City of Cypress.

During the most recent Cypress City Council meeting, legal counsel Fred Galante told the Council that “on June 30, the court agreed with all our arguments and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The court found that each point that the plaintiff’s complaint alleged against the city lacked any merit at all and should not continue. So with that complaint, the complaint was dismissed.”

And, according to the city’s staff report, “on March 10, 2023, the City Attorney’s office filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“Motion”) asking the judge in the case to find that none of the legal claims against the City are legally appropriate and to decide the matter in the City’s favor.”

To Galante’s point, Judge Randall Sherman issued a ruling in Orange County Superior Court on June 30 that did side generally with the city’s positions on the various claims made in the Youngsma vs. Cypress School District suit.

The city, said Galante, has paid Aleshire & Wynder law firm $54,000 for its work on this case alone.

“On June 30, 2023, the day scheduled for oral arguments on the Motion, the judge ruled in the City’s favor on all claims against the City alleged in the complaint by Mr. and Mrs. Youngsma and the other plaintiffs. The decision ends the case against the City, unless the Plaintiffs amend the complaint to address what the judge concluded were inappropriate and time-barred claims against the City,” the report continued.

In the three-page order, Judge Sherman cited various factors such as statutes of limitations exclusions, late filings and pleadings that demonstrate the school district “is exempt from land-use requirements” as the foundation of his ruling.

According to a press release that remains on the city site, “the City of Cypress defended its taxpayers and saw the court summarily dismiss an ongoing lawsuit (Youngsma, et al. v. Cypress School District, et al.) that accuses the City of inappropriately allowing the Cypress School District to utilize a school site for school uses.

“The court denied each of the plaintiff’s claims against the City and noted that not only were the plaintiff’s claims without merit, but the plaintiff missed the filing deadline by nearly two months. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, which they did on July 14, 2023.”

“The judge’s unequivocal ruling is a complete and absolute victory for the City of Cypress and its taxpayers,” said Anne Mallari, Mayor of Cypress. “The plaintiffs claim that the City was somehow liable for inverse condemnation of the plaintiffs’ property because we did not take action to stop the school district from using the site as a facility to support and maintain its elementary schools, which is permissible under our zoning code, was promptly rejected by the court.”

The press release uses language attributed to Mayor Anne Hertz Mallari that depict the affected citizens lawsuit as an “attempt to extract money from their neighbors.” In fact, most of the Youngsma’s “neighbors” are suing the city and the school district as well.

Further, the press release makes no mention of their fellow citizen’s lengthy petition citing damage to their neighborhood and way of life caused by the government’s decision to allow the conversion at Swain.

There are 42 residents, many of whom presumably have lived in the city for much of their lives, suing the school district and the city for harm over the Swain MOTT, not just Bob and Wanda Youngsma.

According to Geurts amended petition filed July 13, “plaintiffs, each individually, have suffered, and continue to suffer daily, significant loss in value to their respective real properties and interference with the comfortable use and enjoyment of their respective properties, all caused by the unreasonable, illegal, negligent, and intentional acts of Defendants in failing to comply with zoning ordinances, including refusal to undertake environmental impact studies, reviews for compliance with zoning ordinances, and design reviews.”

City officials have a different view.

“Our council and city staff will remain on watch and stand guard against anyone that tries to take advantage of our beautiful community,” the mayor is quoted as saying in the release.

During the meeting, Mayor Pro-Tem Scott Minikus went so far as to single out Mr. Youngsma, asking rhetorically, “How much did Mr. Youngsma cost the taxpayers,” making no mention of the other 41 plaintiffs.

“Mr. Minikus is so far out of line by singling me out,” said Youngsma after the meeting, adding that “this is the second time he’s openly violated the Council’s own “Civility and Governance” policy that prohibits person attacks,” said Youngsma. “I think he should be censured.”

Despite the city’s pronouncements to the contrary, however, Wanda Youngsma said the lawsuit has not been dismissed, providing the ENE with an updated copy of the amended petition filed July 13. Mrs. Youngsma also provided a notice from the city attorney’s office about a video deposition coming up in the case.

“We just received a “Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition of Plaintiff Bob R. Youngsma” from the Cypress City Attorney,” said Wanda Youngsma on July 21. “The lawsuit has not been dismissed at all,” she said.

“If the city’s “Press Release” dated July 11, 2023, had been vetted through legal and undergone a lengthy vetting process, how was it cleared through the vetting process when it is inaccurate,” asked Youngsma?

“All you have to do is read the 2nd paragraph of the written presentation from Mr. Galante, on Agenda Item #11 and the 1st paragraph of the “Courts Ruling” (which isn’t the real court ruling.) If this item had gone through a lengthy vetting process, it would not have been posted on the City website,” she said.

“The Press Release needs to be removed immediately from the City Website,” Mrs. Youngsma said.

Although Judge Sherman did reject major parts of the plaintiff’s petition, it did also, in fact, provide an opportunity for the plaintiffs to amend their petition to address the concerns expressed in his initial ruling, now acknowledged by the city.

In an interview with ENE on July 25, Galante confirmed that the case has not been fully dismissed and said the city’s press release has since been amended as such.

Galante said, however, that he could not confirm any potential depositions in the case since he could not comment on ongoing litigation.