Litigation

Subscribe to Litigation via RSS

In a published opinion filed October 17, 2025, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s preliminary injunction orders in five related actions prohibiting preconstruction geotechnical work to be undertaken by the Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) in connection with the Delta tunnel project (formally known as the “Delta Conveyance Project”). The Court of Appeal held the trial court erred in interpreting a provision of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009 (the “Delta Reform Act” or “Act”; Wat. Code, §85000 et seq.), requiring state agencies to certify to the Delta Stewardship Council that “covered actions” (as statutorily defined) are consistent with the Delta Plan before implementing them. (the “certification of consistency” requirement; id., §85225). Specifically, it rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the certification of consistency requirement “incorporated” CEQA’s “piecemealing” and “whole of an action” concepts so as to render the proposed preconstruction geotechnical work, which is not a “covered action,” inseparable from the relevant “covered action” – i.e., the Delta tunnel project – and thus unable to proceed absent a certification of consistency. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, et al v. Department of Water Resources (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 342. Finding plaintiffs had thus failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits of their action, the Court of Appeal accordingly remanded the matters to the trial court with directions to vacate the preliminary injunction orders and reconsider plaintiffs’ motions in light of its conclusion that DWR was not required to submit a certificate of consistency to the Delta Stewardship Council before engaging in preconstruction geotechnical work.Continue Reading Third District Holds CEQA’s “Whole of an Action” And “Piecemealing” Principles Do Not Apply to Delta Reform Act’s “Certification of Consistency” Requirement, Reverses Preliminary Injunctions Against Non-Implementation, Preconstruction Geotechnical Work for Delta Tunnel Project

In a lengthy and highly technical published opinion filed August 5, 2025, the Fifth District Court of Appeal partly reversed and partly affirmed a judgment that had upheld the State Water Resources Control Board’s (“State Water Board” or “SWRCB”) adoption of the “State Policy for Water Quality Control: Toxicity Provisions” (the “Toxicity Provisions”), which policy in relevant part required use of a new “Test of Significant Toxicity” (“TST”) in analyzing a type of pollution known as “whole effluent toxicity.”  Camarillo Sanitary District et al. v. State Water Resources Control Board (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 407.Continue Reading Fifth District Holds State Water Board’s Adoption of Regulations Requiring New Test for Whole Effluent Toxicity Violated Federal Clean Water Act Regulations Governing NPDES Permitting, But Not CEQA, APA or Porter Cologne

In a partially published 102-page opinion filed June 26, 2025, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 7) resolved cross-appeals by affirming the trial court’s judgment invalidating Los Angeles County’s 2019 EIR certification and project approvals for the Centennial Specific Plan, a 12,323-acre development on the historic Tejon Ranch in the County’s Antelope Valley Area south of Kern County.  Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Los Angeles (Centennial Founders, LLC, et al., Real Parties in Interest) (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 317.  The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court in all respects, holding the EIR’s GHG and off-site wildfire impacts analyses were deficient, while rejecting challenges to its analyses, discussion, and mitigation for wildlife movement corridors and native vegetation and to its alternatives analysis.  (Per this blog’s standard practice, this post will discuss only the published portion of the opinion, which addressed only the GHG issues.)Continue Reading “Double Counting” or Redundant Mitigation?  Second District Holds CEQA Guidelines’ Additionality Requirement Precludes Applying Upstream Energy or Fuel Providers’ Obligatory Cap-and-Trade Compliance To Offset Land Use Project’s Estimated GHG Emissions, Invalidates “Prejudicially Misleading” EIR For Massive LA County Centennial Project On That And Other Grounds

In an opinion filed May 14, and later ordered published on June 11, 2025, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) affirmed a judgment dismissing a CEQA action challenging an approval for a City parking lot redevelopment/affordable housing project due to the Petitioner’s failure to timely join the necessary and indispensable real party developer of the project’s housing component.  Citizens for a Better Eureka v. City of Eureka (Wiyot Tribe, Real Party in Interest) (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1114.Continue Reading First District Affirms Judgment Dismissing CEQA Action Based On Petitioner’s Failure To Join Indispensable Real Party Developer Within Statute of Limitations Period

Like a gift to land use lawyers that never stops giving, the strange and wondrous interrelationship between CEQA and the Permit Streamlining Act (“PSA”; Gov. Code, § 65920 et seq) continues to inspire litigation and require judicial explication.  In a terse 8-page published opinion filed May 30, 2025, the Third District Court of Appeal explained the finer points of the rules governing PSA-required permit submittal checklists and completeness determinations and how they interact with CEQA when the latter applies to the permit at issue.  Old Golden Oaks LLC v. County of Amador (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 794.  (And, it can be noted, CEQA should virtually always apply to “development projects” subject to the PSA, which do not include ministerial projects.  (Gov. Code § 65928).)Continue Reading Third District Holds County Could Require Supplemental Environmental Information From Grading Permit Applicant As Condition of Application Completeness Determination Where Permit Submittal Checklist Alerted Applicant CEQA Compliance Would Be Required

In a published opinion filed March 27, 2025, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. 1) reversed the trial court’s judgment denying a writ petition, and held that two screening thresholds of significance for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts adopted by the County of San Diego as part of its 2022 Transportation Study Guide were invalid because they were unsupported by any substantial evidence.  Cleveland National Forest Foundation, et al. v. County of San Diego (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1257.Continue Reading Fourth District Invalidates San Diego County’s “Infill” And “Small Project” VMT Screening Thresholds As Lacking Substantial Evidence Support

In a published opinion filed March 14, 2025, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 2) reversed the trial court’s judgment upholding a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for a four-story, 75-room hotel/meeting hall/parking lot project on a 2.8-acre parcel in the City of Clearlake (“City”), due to the City’s failure to lawfully conduct a tribal cultural resources consultation with plaintiff and appellant Koi Nation of Northern California as required by AB 52.  Koi Nation of Northern California v. City of Clearlake (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 815.Continue Reading First District Voids Clearlake Hotel Project MND for City’s Failure to Conduct Adequate CEQA AB 52 Tribal Cultural Resources Consultation

On February 13, 2025, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 7) filed its 71-page published opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment rejecting CEQA safety hazard and cumulative impacts analysis challenges – as well as Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and generic “arbitrary and capricious” writ challenges – to the California Air Resources Board’s (“CARB”) August 2020 decision adopting the “Control Measure For Ocean-Going Vessels At Berth” (the “Regulation,” codified at 17 Cal. Code Regs. § 93130 et seq).  Western States Petroleum Association v. California Air Resources Board (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 938.Continue Reading Second District Affirms Judgment Rejecting CEQA And Other Challenges To CARB’s “Technology-Forcing” Emissions-Control Regulation For At-Berth Tanker And Other Ships

On November 22, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal’s (Div. 4) partially-published opinion in People of the State of California ex rel. Bonta v. County of Lake (Lotusland Investment Holdings, Inc., et al. Real Parties in Interest) (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222 (No. A165677) became final.  The published part of the decision addresses several significant CEQA topic areas, including the adequacy of an EIR’s discussions of impacts related to a large rural resort development project’s wildfire risks and water supply impacts, and the propriety of a lead agency’s condition of approval imposing a carbon credit purchase obligation to potentially mitigate the project’s significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in light of acknowledged uncertainty as to whether such credits would be available.  (As a matter of disclosure, Respondent County of Lake was represented in the trial and appellate proceedings in this case by this post’s authors, Miller Starr Regalia attorneys Arthur Coon and Matthew Henderson.)Continue Reading First District Addresses Significant CEQA Issues Relating to Wildfire Risk, GHG Emissions, and Water Supply Impacts in Lake County Resort Development Case

In an important opinion filed October 21, and later ordered published on November 18, 2024 (at the request of the California State Association of Counties and the Rural County Representatives of California), the Sixth District Court of Appeal interpreted key terms in the CEQA Guidelines Class 32 categorical exemption, which applies to “in-fill development” projects that meet specified criteria, including being “substantially surrounded by urban uses.”  In doing so, the Court upheld a low-population city’s use of the exemption for a Grocery Outlet project near Highway 101.  Working Families of Monterey County, et al. v. King City Planning Commission (Best Development Group, LLC, Real Party in Interest) (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 833.Continue Reading Sixth District Affirms Judgment Upholding Application of CEQA Guidelines Class 32 Infill Development Exemption To Project On Parcel Substantially Surrounded By Urban Uses In Small-Population City