California Case Summaries™ (https://cacasesummaries.com)
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. is the publisher of California Case Summaries™ which provides short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new published civil and family law case helping California lawyers easily keep up with the new case law in their practice areas. Monthly, quarterly and annual single-user and discounted multi-user subscriptions are available. Monty hasbeen a California civil trial lawyer since 1980, a member of ABOTA since 1995, and currently works as a full-time mediator, arbitrator and referee with ADR Services, Inc. (ADR) in ADR’s offices in San Diego, Irvine, and Los Angeles.
Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2020 WL 3119041: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s order approving a writ of mandate and requiring respondent to vacate its approvals of the Climate Action Plan (CAP) and Guidelines for Determining Significance of Climate Change (Guidelines), and respondent’s certification of a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR). The trial court also enjoined respondent from relying on a greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation measure in the SEIR called M-GHG-1 during review of greenhouse gas emissions impacts of development proposals on unincorporated land in the county. The Court of Appeal held that (1) M-GHG-1 violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it contained unenforceable performance standards and improperly deferred and delegated mitigation; (2) the CAP was not inconsistent with respondent’s General Plan, but respondent abused its discretion in approving the CAP because the CAP’s projected additional greenhouse gas emissions from projects requiring a general plan amendment was not supported by substantial evidence; (3) the SEIR violated CEQA because its (a) discussion of cumulative impacts ignored foreseeable impacts from probable future projects; (b) finding of consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan was not supported by substantial evidence; and (c) analysis of alternatives ignored a smart-growth alternative. (C.A. 4th, June 12, 2020.)
Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods v. Regents of the University of Cal. (2020) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2020 WL 3467992: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer, without leave to amend, to the petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief challenging respondents’ decisions to increase enrollment without further review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code, section 21000 et seq.). The trial court held that, under Public Resources Code section 21080.09, respondents had satisfied CEQA by analyzing projected enrollment in the 2005 development plan environmental impact report and had no duty to analyze the environmental impacts of subsequent enrollment increases. The Court of Appeal disagreed, ruling that section 21080.09 does not exempt public universities from performing a CEQA review when they make discretionary decisions to increase enrollment levels. (C.A. 1st, June 25, 2020.)
Adams v. Bank of America (2020) _ Cal.App. 5th _ 2020 WL 3527894: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings against plaintiff’s complaint alleging that defendants violated the Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR). The Court of Appeal ruled that, while the trial court properly concluded that plaintiff had not alleged a cause of action under the HBOR because the complaint failed to allege that the property was her principal residence, it erred in not granting plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. (C.A. 1st, June 30, 2020.)