City, as its sole support of this conclusion, cites a Circuit Court case for the City of
Alexandria which is not binding on this Court. Nor does an injunction sought by the
Plaintiff, under 15.2-2208 or otherwise, ask the court to invade the legislative space of
City Council in violation of principles of separation of powers. On the Contrary, the
relief sought by Plaintiff is for the Court to find that the 2003 Ordinance did not re-zone
the Daughter Parcels and issue an injunction prohibiting the City and its agents from
treating the Daughter Parcels lacking IPP overlay zoning. The Plaintiff of course does
not seek an injunction preventing City Council from exercising its zoning powers, on the
contrary, it is the purported legislative action in the absence of legislative process that is
at issue in this case.
C. Defendant Landowner's Demurrer
The Defendant Landowner's grounds for demurrer rest primarily on whether the
Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts in his Complaint. While Rule I :4(d) of the Rules of
the Supreme Court only requires that a pleading is sufficient if it clearly informs the
opposite party of the true nature of the claim, which Plaintiff believes he has done, as is
stated above, Plaintiff conceded at oral argument on the Defendant's Motion for Joinder,
that amendment of his Complaint is likely necessary to clarify several points and the
Plaintiff intends to file a motion requesting such leave to amend his Complaint. Given
that the issues raised in the Defendant Landowner's demurrer may be corrected in an
amended complaint if leave to amend is granted, and given that these issues are not