Remedies

Subscribe to Remedies

“I fought the law and the law won” – The Crickets

In an opinion filed July 19, and later ordered published on August 16, 2023, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6) reversed the trial court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in a CEQA action enjoining the Santa Barbara County Road Commissioner from enforcing public laws by removing unpermitted encroachments from a public right-of-way.  Christopher Anderson, et al. v. County of Santa Barbara, et al. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 554. The public officer’s law enforcement actions were held to be exempt from CEQA; to have independent utility apart from any alleged larger, “piecemealed” project evading CEQA review; and not to be subject to the “unusual circumstances” exception to applicable categorical exemptions.  While the Court was careful to fully analyze all of petitioners’ CEQA arguments, its opinion also offered numerous other reasons why the trial court erred and exceeded its lawful authority under applicable legal principles in issuing the preliminary injunction.Continue Reading Second District Reverses Preliminary Injunction, Holds CEQA Cannot Trump Santa Barbara County’s Authority To Remove Unpermitted Encroachments Placed In Public Right-Of-Way By Adjacent Landowners

In a published opinion filed August 14, 2023, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a judgment that denied a petition for writ of mandate challenging the State Department of Public Health’s (Department) approval of Real Party in Interest Harm Reduction Coalition of Santa Cruz County’s (real party) needle exchange program.  Grant Park Neighborhood Association Advocates v. Department of Public Health, et al. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 478.  In ordering a writ to issue to set aside the approval, the Court of Appeal agreed with petitioner and appellant Grant Park’s first three arguments based on the Department’s prejudicial violations of Health and Safety Code § 121349’s required procedures; it declined to reach appellant’s separate CEQA argument seeking the same relief, however, since it had already granted all requested relief under the other statutory provisions.  However – and as most relevant to this blog – the Court also noted that following the trial court’s judgment the Legislature enacted a 2021 statutory amendment exempting the Department’s approval of needle exchange operations from CEQA.Continue Reading Third District Declines To Reach CEQA Exemption Claim In Reversing On Other Grounds Judgment Upholding State Department of Public Health’s Approval of Santa Cruz County Needle Exchange Program But Notes New Statutory CEQA Exemption Now Exists

In an opinion filed July 19, and ordered published on August 9, 2023, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. 1) reversed a trial court order denying the City of San Diego’s (City) request to discharge a peremptory writ of mandate issued under CEQA that ordered the City to set aside three resolutions approving a set of neighborhood utility wire undergrounding projects.  Because the writ did nothing more than order the approvals set aside, and the City’s return demonstrated full compliance with that CEQA mandate, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion in retaining continuing jurisdiction and failing to discharge the writ.  McCann v. City of San Diego (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 284 (“McCann II”). Continue Reading CEQA Writ Simple: Fourth District Holds Trial Court Erred In Retaining Continuing Jurisdiction And Not Discharging Peremptory Writ That Ordered Only Set Aside Remedy Where Lead Agency’s Return Demonstrated Full Compliance

On January 25, 2023, the California Supreme Court extended to March 3, 2023 its time to grant or deny review of the Second District Court of Appeal’s published opinion in G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 814.  My October 31, 2022 post on the Court of Appeal’s opinion, and my follow-up December 5, 2022 post on its modified opinion on denial of rehearing can be found here and here.Continue Reading Supreme Court Extends Time To Decide Petitions For Review In Brown Act/CEQA Exemption Case; Sonoma County Files Depublication Request And Cal Cities Files Amicus Letter Urging Review

In an opinion on rehearing filed January 18, 2023, the Third District Court of Appeal reissued its previous published opinion in the Save Our Capitol! case (my January 2, 2023 post on which can be found here) with the addition of a few pages of discussion addressing “Relief” inserted at the end of the majority opinion just before its “Disposition.” Continue Reading Third District Adds Brief CEQA Severance Analysis After Rehearing In Save Our Capitol! Case, Limits Its Relief To Allow Capitol Annex Demolition To Go Forward

While CEQA is a complicated area of law, often criticized as a “plaintiff’s sandbox,” CEQA litigation is not a “free-for-all” immune from malicious prosecution actions when it is unsuccessfully pursued with malice and without probable cause.  Such is the teaching of the First District Court of Appeal’s December 28, 2022 published opinion in Charles Jenkins et al v. Susan Brandt-Hawley et al (1st Dist., Div. 2, 2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1357, which affirmed the trial court’s order denying an anti-SLAPP motion and allowing a malicious prosecution action to proceed against a prominent CEQA attorney and her law firm.Continue Reading When CEQA Litigation Turns Tortious: First District Affirms Order Denying Anti-SLAPP Motion, Allows Malicious Prosecution Action To Proceed Against Counsel Who Brought Unsuccessful CEQA Challenge To Single-Home Project

On December 5, 2022, the real party in interest (Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. dba Athens Services) and respondent City of Thousand Oaks both filed petitions for review in the California Supreme Court in G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks (2022) ___ Cal.App.5th ___.  (My recent post on the Second District Court of Appeal’s modified opinion order, which contains a link to my original post on the case, can be found here.)
Continue Reading Petitions for Review Filed In Brown Act/CEQA Exemption Case

The Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6) has issued a November 22, 2022 Order modifying its opinion and denying rehearing in G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks (2022) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, without changing the judgment.  That case expanded existing law under the Brown Act and CEQA by holding, on an issue of first impression, that a public agency must agendize a staff determination that a project is CEQA-exempt as an item of business for the meeting on project approval.  (My October 31, 2022 post on the case can be found here.)
Continue Reading Second District Denies Rehearing and Modifies Opinion In Brown Act/CEQA Exemption Case; CSAC and Solano County Seek Depublication In Supreme Court

In a published opinion filed October 26, 2022, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6) appears to have significantly expanded the reach of both the Brown Act and the procedural requirements of CEQA in holding, on an issue of first impression, that a public agency must list its staff’s determination that a project is exempt from CEQA as an item of business on the agenda for the meeting at which it considers the project approval. G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks, et al (Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., Real Party In Interest) (2022) __ Cal.App.5th __. The opinion thus extends San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1167 (“San Joaquin Raptor”), which held that a public agency’s decision to adopt a CEQA document, such as an EIR or negative declaration, must be described as a distinct item of business under the Brown Act when it is to be considered at a public hearing, to the distinct context of CEQA-exempt projects.
Continue Reading Second District Holds Brown Act Requires Lead Agency To List CEQA Exemption As Item of Business On Agenda For Public Meeting When Project Already Found Exempt By Staff Is Considered For Approval

The First District Court of Appeal filed on June 30, and later ordered published on July 26, 2022, its opinion in County of Mono v. City of Los Angeles (1st Dist. No. A162590) 81 Cal.App.5th 657.  The case involves another round in the long-running controversies surrounding Los Angeles’s efforts to secure water for its populace.  As the City now owns substantial acreage in the Sierra Nevada from which it takes much of its water, it serves both as landlord and water user in that region.  The overlap of those two roles gave rise to the County of Mono case, in which the County sought to use CEQA litigation as leverage over the City’s water allocations to agricultural users who lease property from the City.  The case holds that the City’s water allocations to the City’s agricultural lessees were authorized under its existing 2010 leases and thus did not constitute a new project subject to CEQA review before they could be lawfully implemented. The case provides guidance to practitioners on when and how CEQA applies to  public contracts, and also regarding the appropriate contents of the administrative record in CEQA litigation challenging staff level actions implementing existing leases.  Entitlement and litigation attorneys should accordingly both find it a useful case to review.
Continue Reading First District Holds LA’s Water Allocations To Agricultural Lessees Were Authorized Under Existing Leases And Did Not Constitute Or Implement A Separate “Project” Subject to CEQA Review