In June we reported that California Governor Gavin Newsom’s infrastructure permitting and CEQA reform legislation package was mostly dead, with the Legislature finding it too complex for last-minute consideration. But there’s a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Legislators and the Governor subsequently reached a tentative agreement to allow a pared-down version
In Durkin v. City & County of San Francisco (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 643, the First District Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in granting the real party in interest’s special motion to strike under anti-SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) law on the grounds that the real party’s actions were not
In Jenkins et al. v. Brandt-Hawley et al. (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1357, the First District Court of Appeal found that CEQA suits can be subject to malicious prosecution actions. The Court of Appeal upheld an order denying an anti-SLAPP motion, allowing a malicious prosecution action to proceed against an attorney who litigated an unsuccessful
In Department of Water Resources Environmental Impact Cases (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 556, the Third District Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying motions for attorney’s fees arising out of the voluntary dismissal of coordinated petitions following project changes and decertification of the challenged EIR under pressure from Governor
On March 30, 2022, the First District Court of Appeal published its opinion in Save the Hill Group v. City of Livermore (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1092, invalidating an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Garaventa Hills Project (“Project”) because it failed to disclose the feasibility of funding sources or rezoning that could allow the
On March 22, 2022, the Second District Court of Appeal published its Opinion in Buena Vista Water Storage District v. Kern Water Bank Authority (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 576, upholding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Kern Water Bank Authority’s Conservation and Storage Project (“Project”) and reversing the trial court’s ruling. The Project proposes
In an opinion certified for partial publication, the Third Appellate District on November 3, 2021, decided Farmland Protection Alliance v. County of Yolo, finding that the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not allow an agency to split environmental review across multiple levels of review—for example, by preparing a negative declaration to address
In Central Delta Water Agency v. Department of Water Resources (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 170, the Third District Court of Appeal considered three consolidated appeals arising out of long-term water contracts that have been the subject of repeated rounds of environmental review and litigation lasting decades. In each of the consolidated cases, the Court of Appeal set forth the respective trial courts’ reasoning and rulings at length, and affirmed them in full.
In the unpublished opinion N. Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water Dist. (June 28, 2021, No. C092233) [2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4220], the Third District Court of Appeal held that a CEQA petitioner had not sufficiently established a nonduplicative, significant contribution to litigation warranting the award of attorney fees in light of the Attorney General’s prosecution of the matter.
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, a party who enforces an important right affecting the public interest through litigation may be eligible to recover their attorney fees. To succeed under this provision, a party must establish, among other factors, the necessity for private enforcement.
In an opinion filed on April 19, and certified for publication on May 4, 2021, the Third Appellate District in Alliance for Responsible Planning v. Taylor (County of El Dorado) held that a citizen-sponsored ballot measure requiring new development to fund all cumulative traffic mitigation prior to construction violated the Takings Clause of the Constitution