CALIFORNIA CASE SUMMARY UPDATE: November 2024 Real Property Case Summaries

By:  Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.

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

Publisher: California Case Summaries™:
California Case Summaries™: the fast and easy way to always know the new cases in your practice areas to get a competitive advantage and win more cases.  
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee at ADR Services, Inc.:
Business, employment, insurance, probate, real property and torts cases. To schedule, contact one of Monty’s case managers Haward Cho, haward@adrservices.com, (213) 683-1600, or Rachael Boughan, rboughan@adrservices.com, (619) 233-1323.  
Trial Mentoring™:  Trial training and preparation. Email Monty at: monty@montymcintyre.com.    
Trial Alchemy™: Interviews of outstanding plaintiff and defense lawyers and civil trial judges who are ABOTA members about what works, and what doesn’t work in jury trials. Available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and YouTube.

California Case Summaries™:

California Case Summaries™: The fast and easy way to always know the new published cases in your practice areas to get a competitive advantage and win more cases. This unique subscription provides one-paragraph case summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new civil case published by California courts. Subscribers get monthly issues with Westlaw case citations, quarterly issues with the official case citation, and an annual issue in early January each year with the official case citations. Individual attorney and Law Firm Unlimited Multi-user subscriptions are available. To subscribe, click here.

Here are the case summaries from last month:

CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL

Environment

Gooden v. County of Los Angeles (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4585703: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus seeking to overturn respondent’s decision to prohibit any new vineyards after it had  circulated an amended land use plan for an unincorporated mountainous region that contemplated continued heavy regulation of vineyards in that region. The Court of Appeal held that if a public agency, prior to certifying an environmental impact report, ultimately takes action in a manner that deviates from the project described in the report, CEQA contemplates three possible outcomes in this scenario. If the deviation alters the very “nature of the project” and its “main features,” the deviation retrospectively renders inaccurate and unstable the definition of the project previously set forth in the report, thereby necessitating a new report to evaluate what is effectively a new project. If the deviation is less extreme, but increases the project’s adverse environmental impact by adding “significant new information” for consideration, the public agency must recirculate for further public comment an amended version of the pertinent portions of the previously circulated report. And if the deviation does not trigger either of these duties, no further action is required. Regarding this case, the Court of Appeal concluded that because respondent circulated an amended land use plan for an unincorporated mountainous region that contemplated continued heavy regulation of vineyards in that region, and the county board ultimately imposed a ban on new vineyards, this deviation did not alter the very nature of the plan amendment or its main features, so the trial court properly denied the writ petition. (C.A. 2nd, October 25, 2024.)

Santa Clarita Organization for Planning etc. v. County of L.A. (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4539918: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant developer Williams Homes, Inc.’s (William’s) motion for judgment on the pleadings in plaintiff’s writ petition challenging approval of a conditional use permit, an oak tree permit, and a vesting tentative tract map for a proposed residential housing development in an unincorporated area of the Santa Clarita Valley (the project) based upon alleged violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and violations of planning and zoning law including the Subdivision Map Act (SMA; Gov. Code, § 66410 et seq.). The trial court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that Government Code section 66499.37 barred plaintiff’s causes of action for violations of the SMA and CEQA because plaintiff failed to serve a summons on defendant County of L.A. (County) and defendant Williams within 90 days of the County’s approval of the vesting tentative tract map as required by section 66499.37. The Court of Appeal disagreed and reversed. It concluded that section 66499.37 did not bar plaintiff’s CEQA claims to the extent the petition alleged procedural violations of CEQA (for example, lack of adequate notice of the mitigated negative declaration) and the County’s failure to analyze and disclose the project’s environmental impacts, all of which are unique to CEQA and could not have been brought under the SMA. However, it agreed with the trial court that the limitations period under section 66499.37 applied to the extent the petition challenged the reasonableness of the conditions of approval of the vesting tentative tract map. Because a motion for judgment on the pleadings must dispose of the entire cause of action, the trial court erred in granting the motion as to the CEQA cause of action. (C.A. 2nd, October 21, 2024.)

Save Our Capitol! v. Dept. of General Services (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4432046: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying petitioner’s petition for writ of mandate alleging that a revised environmental impact report (EIR) regarding the proposed Capitol Annex Project failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). The trial court properly denied the petition based on recent legislation exempting the project from CEQA’s requirements. (C.A. 1st, October 7, 2024.)

West Adams Heritage Assn. et al. v. City of Los Angeles (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4633434: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying a writ petition seeking to overturn respondent’s approval of a proposed residential housing development (the project) near the University of Southern California (USC), finding it was exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.; CEQA) because the project was subject to a Class 32 exemption for urban in-fill developments. The case was transferred to the Court of Appeal from the California Supreme Court with instructions to vacate its earlier decision and reconsider the cause in light of Assembly Bill No. 1307 (Stats. 2023, ch. 160, § 1) and Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (Resources for Community Development) (2024) 16 Cal.5th 43 (Make UC II). Applying the new authorities, the Court of Appeal held that noise concerns advanced by plaintiffs did not constitute a significant environmental effect impeding application of the Class 32 exemption. However, the Court of Appeal concluded that respondent could not grant a Class 32 exemption without first finding the project was consistent not only with the generally applicable zoning ordinance, but also with the redevelopment plan. Because respondent had not yet determined whether the project was consistent with the redevelopment plan, plaintiffs were entitled to a writ setting aside the grant of the Class 32 exemption pending that determination, which respondent had represented it must do anyhow to approve a building permit for the project. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and remanded solely for the purpose of respondent conducting that analysis. (C.A. 2nd, October 31, 2024.)

Yolo Land and Water Defense et al. v. County of Yolo et al. (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4210410: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying a writ petition challenging the approval by respondent of a proposal by real party in interest Teichert, Inc. to mine sand and gravel on specified property and then reclaim a portion of the mined area to farmland, a lake, grasslands, and riparian habitat, and the trial court’s order denying petitioners’ motion to tax respondent’s memorandum of costs. The Court of Appeal concluded that (1) it was proper for the environmental impact report (EIR) to use existing conditions as the baseline for environmental analysis, and substantial evidence supported respondent’s determination of the existing conditions; (2) the EIR adequately addressed the potentially significant impacts of the potential for an increase in methylmercury in the reclaimed lake; (3) substantial evidence supported the goal in mitigation measure 4.2-1 to reclaim mined land to a state equivalent in quality and capacity to existing prime farmland; and (4) it was proper to award respondent costs for preparation of the administrative record, and petitioners did not show that the awarded amount was unsupported or unreasonable. (C.A. 3rd, filed September 13, 2024, published October 3, 2024.)

Real Property

Batta v. Hunt (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4607596: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment for plaintiffs, following a bench trial, finding that plaintiffs had established easement rights for additional parking and dumpsters in a disputed area on an adjacent parcel owned by defendant under multiple theories, including by oral grant, by prescription, and by implication, and ordered that the easement would expire upon a bona fide sale of either property by the plaintiffs or defendant. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that the trial court’s findings were inconsistent and required reversal. The trial court’s findings supporting defendant’s express or implied grant of an easement were inconsistent with its finding that defendant did not grant the plaintiffs permission to use her property. The Court of Appeal concluded it could not modify the judgment and affirm it as modified, and sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. (C.A. 2nd, October 29, 2024.)

JCCrandall v. County of Santa Barbara (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4599704: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying a petition for a writ of administrative mandate seeking to overturn respondent’s decision granting a conditional use permit (CUP) for the cultivation of cannabis where a private easement over a neighbor’s land was the only access to the land subject to the CUP. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court and reversed its order because under federal law cannabis is illegal in California and everywhere else in the United States. The servient tenant’s objection on this ground was sufficient to defeat the CUP. (C.A. 2nd, October 29, 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 Spotify, click here.
To listen to the podcast on Apple, click here.
To watch and listen to the podcast on YouTube, click here.