Real Property Law

CALIFORNIA CASE SUMMARY UPDATE: July 2024 Real Property Case Summaries

July 2024

By Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.

Monty McIntyre

Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Helping Attorneys Get Excellent Results

Publisher: California Case Summaries™:
Monty publishes California Case Summaries™, with one-paragraph summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new civil case published each month, quarter and year in California, giving subscribers a competitive advantage and excellent results.
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee at ADR Services, Inc.:
Monty handles matters in the areas of business, employment, insurance (bad faith, coverage, UIM), probate (trusts and estates), real property and torts (elder abuse, medical malpractice, personal injury, product liability and wrongful death). To schedule, contact Monty’s case managers Haward Cho, haward@adrservices.com, (213) 683-1600, or Rachael Boughan, rboughan@adrservices.com, (619) 233-1323.  
Master Lawyer Mentoring™:  Trial training & Associate training. For more information, call Monty at (619) 990-4312 or email him at monty@montymcintyre.com.    
Trial Alchemy™: Monty interviews outstanding plaintiff and defense lawyers and ABOTA members about what works, and what doesn’t work in jury trials. Available on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

California Case Summaries™:

California Case Summaries: Unique one-paragraph summaries, organized by legal practice, of every new published civil case each month, every quarter, and in early January each year an annual issue is released. These case summaries, offered throughout the year, give subscribers a competitive advantage to win more cases. To subscribe, click here.

Here are the case summaries  from last month:

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

Environment

Make UC a Good Neighbor v. The Regents of the University of Cal. (2024) _ Cal.5th _ , 2024 WL 2855736: The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision that had concluded that defendant’s approval of an environmental impact report (EIR) for a proposed housing project to be built on a site called People’s Park near the UC Berkeley campus, violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the EIR failed to consider the environmental impacts caused by “student-generated noise” such as “vocal noise from house parties and from late-night pedestrians,” and the EIR failed to adequately consider alternatives to the People’s Park location. After the Court of Appeal decision, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 1307 (2023–2024 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1307) as urgency legislation, effective immediately, which added sections 21085 and 21085.2 to the Public Resources Code. The new law provides that: (1) the effects of noise generated by project occupants and their guests on human beings is not a significant effect on the environment for residential projects for purposes of CEQA; and (2) institutions of public higher education, in an EIR for a residential or mixed-use housing project, are not required to consider alternatives to the location of the proposed project if certain requirements are met. Based upon this new law, the California Supreme Court concluded that none of plaintiff’s claims had merit and it reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment. The new law applied to both the People’s Park housing project and the development plan, and the EIR was not inadequate for having failed to study the potential noisiness of future UC Berkeley students in connection with the project. (June 6, 2024.)


CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL

Land Use

Casa Blanca Beach etc. v. County of Santa Barbara (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 3158103: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining defendant  California Coastal Commission’s (Commission) demurrer, without leave to amend, to plaintiff’s complaint for declaratory relief and petition for a writ of mandate claiming that it had no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law in getting approval for the building of a beach access walkway pursuant to an offer to dedicate recorded in 1990. Defendant County of Santa Barbara (County) accepted the offer to dedicate in 2011. In 2017 the County and Commission sent plaintiff a notice of violation alleging the deadline to construct the walkway had expired. In response, plaintiff submitted walkway construction plans to the County, but was told it must obtain a coastal development permit from the Commission. It applied to the Commission for the permit, but the Commission deemed the application incomplete. Over the next few years, plaintiff and the Commission unsuccessfully worked together to complete the permit application. Commission staff’s determined that plaintiff’s application was incomplete and wanted plaintiff to examine the feasibility of two alternative construction options but plaintiff declined to submit the requested analysis to the Commission. The trial court properly sustained defendant Commission’s demurrer because plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. (C.A. 2nd, filed May 30, 2024, published June 25, 2024.)

San Pablo Ave. Golden Gate Improvement Assn. v. City Council of Oakland (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 3218838: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying a writ petition seeking to overturn the approval by respondents of a zoning clearance and the issuance of a building permit to CloudKitchens authorizing it to convert a wood shop into a commercial kitchen (compartmentalized commercial kitchens for take-out services only) measuring roughly 14,000 square feet space. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that Oakland Municipal Code (OMC) chapter 17.152 (known as the Enforcement Regulations § 17.152.010) did not authorize review of use classifications and resultant zoning clearances. (C.A. 1st, June 28, 2024.)

******

Check out Monty’s new podcast Trial Alchemy ™ where he interviews outstanding plaintiff and defendant civil trial lawyers who are members of the American Board of Trial Advocates.

Trial Alchemy is a discussion with outstanding medical malpractice defense attorney and ABOTA member Dominique Pollara, Esq. This podcast is a great way for civil trial lawyers, whether they’ve tried no cases or many cases, to learn from jury trial experts.


Click here to listen to complete podcast.
To listen to the podcast on Spotifyclick here.
To listen to the podcast on Appleclick here.
To watch and listen to the podcast on YouTube, click here.


Forgot Password

Enter the email associated with you account. You will then receive a link in your inbox to reset your password.

Personal Information

Select Section(s)

CLA Membership is $99 and includes one section. Additional sections are $99 each.

Payment