Real Property Law

CALIFORNIA CASE SUMMARY UPDATE: October 2024 Real Property Case Summaries

Monty McIntyre

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. By consistently reading new published cases, civil attorneys will significantly improve their legal knowledge, skills and overall effectiveness as advocates. 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. Subscribe today to get your competitive advantage, click here.

Here are the case summaries from last month:

CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL

Environment

Cal. Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition v. State Air Resources Bd. (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4282087: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a writ petition alleging that respondent’s adoption of the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation (Regulation) violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA; Gov. Code, § 11340 et seq.). The trial court properly concluded that with respect to CEQA, substantial evidence supported respondent’s rejection of requests to include a natural gas technology low-NOx vehicle credit as an alternative, respondent had no further obligation to consider low-NOx vehicles as a mitigation measure to the project, and, although the trial court concluded respondent had failed to respond to certain public comments regarding the Regulation that error was harmless. The trial court also properly concluded that regarding the APA, respondent had conducted a proper economic analysis and had properly rejected the use of a low-NOx vehicle credit in its analysis. (C.A. 5th, filed August 27, 2024, published September 24, 2024.)

Sunflower Alliance v. Cal. Dept. of Conservation (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4110984: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision grating a petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn the approval by respondent of a project to convert an oil well which formerly pumped oil and water from an aquifer, into an injection well which would pump excess water back into the aquifer. The trial court concluded that respondent could not apply an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act’s regulatory

guidelines for minor alterations of an existing facility where there was only negligible or no expansion of the facility’s use. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15301.). The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that the exemption applied because any expansion of the well’s use was negligible because the environmental risks of injecting the water were negligible. (C.A. 1st, September 6, 2024.)

Upland Community First v. City of Upland (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4182599: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting a petition for a writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, asking the superior court to set respondent’s  approval of a mitigated negative declaration (MND) and other approvals of the development of a 201,096 square-foot warehouse/parcel delivery service building, to be located on 50.25 acres near the Cable Airport (the project). The trial court granted the petition, concluding that the project violated CEQA (§ 21000 et. seq.) because insufficient evidence supported respondent’s use of two quantitative thresholds of significance for measuring the project’s cumulative impacts on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) emissions: (1) a threshold of 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2 e/yr.) (the 10,000 threshold), and (2) a lower threshold of 3,000 MTCO2 e/yr. (the 3,000 threshold). The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that substantial evidence supported respondent’s finding that the project would not have significant impacts on GHG emissions. Specifically, substantial evidence both supported respondent’s use of the 3,000 threshold for measuring the significance of the project’s GHG emissions and showed that the project’s GHG emissions would be below the 3,000 threshold. (C.A. 4th, filed August 15, 2024, published September 13, 2024.)

Landlord-Tenant

City of Alameda v. Sheehan (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4195486: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part, and reversed in part the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in an unlawful detainer action. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that the three day notice to pay rent or quit was defective because “person,” as used in Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2), means a natural person only, and also because it stated that defendant could only pay by cash or check, but then indicated in the next paragraph that she could pay by personal check, cashier’s check, money order or cash. While the Court of Appeal agreed the notice was defective, it disagreed with the trial court regarding Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2), ruling that as used in section 1161(2), “person” is defined by section 17 and includes corporations as well as natural persons. (§ 17, subd. (b)(6).) (C.A. 1st, September 13, 2024.)

S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4159951: The Court of Appeal reversed in part, and affirmed in part, the trial court’s order granting in part a writ petition seeking to invalidate an ordinance approved by respondents that created a longer notice time requirement for landlords pursuing at-fault evictions. The trial court granted only the portion of the writ petition seeking to invalidate the ordinance as applied to at-fault evictions for nonpayment of rent. The Court of Appeal concluded that the entire ordinance was preempted by state law. (C.A. 1st, September 11, 2024.) 

******

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


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