California Case Summaries™ (https://californiacasesummaries.mykajabi.com)
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. is the publisher of California Case Summaries™. 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. California Case Summaries™provides short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new published civil and family law case so California lawyers can easily and affordably keep up with the new case law in their practice areas. Monthly, quarterly and annual subscriptions are available.
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020)_ Cal.App.5th _ , 2020 WL 913788: After respondent approved an ordinance to streamline the permitting process for new oil and gas wells and certified an environmental impact report (EIR) as compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code, section 21000 et seq.), petitioners sued alleging many CEQA violations. The Court of Appeal reversed in part and affirmed in part the trial court’s judgment finding that respondent’s EIR inadequately analyzed the project’s environmental impacts to rangeland and from a road paving mitigation measure, rejecting the other CEQA claims. On remand, the trial court was directed to (1) vacate its order denying the petitions for writ of mandate as to the claims for CEQA violations identified in the opinion; (2) enter a modified order granting those claims; (3) enter a modified judgment; and (4) issue a second or a modified peremptory writ of mandate for corrective action not inconsistent with the opinion. The modified judgment and the peremptory writ of mandate will direct respondent to (1) set aside the certification of the EIR, (2) set aside the Board of Supervisor’s adoption of its findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations, and (3) set aside the approval of the ordinance, effective as of 30 days from the filing of the opinion in the appeal. The writ of mandate shall also direct respondent, in the event it decides to present the ordinance (in its present or a modified form) for re-approval, to correct the CEQA violations identified in the opinion by (4) preparing a revised EIR correcting the CEQA violations relating to (a) water supply impacts and mitigation measures, (b) PM2.5 emission impacts and mitigation measures, (c) agricultural land impacts and mitigation measures, and (d) the analysis of noise impacts; (5) circulating the revised EIR and the Multi-Well Health Risk Assessment for public review and comment; and (6) preparing and publishing responses to the comments received before certifying the revised EIR and reapproving the ordinance. (C.A. 5th, February 25, 2020.)
Citizens for South Bay Coastal Access v. City of San Diego (2020)_ Cal.App.5th _ , 2020 WL 772602: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment, ruling that defendant was required to obtain a coastal development permit for a project because the property was located in the Coastal Overlay Zone as defined in defendant’s municipal code. The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court erred in concluding a coastal development permit was required under state law regulations promulgated by the California Coastal Commission (the Commission). Because the Commission had certified defendant’s local coastal program, those provisions applied rather than the Commission’s regulations. Under defendant’s local coastal program, the project was exempt from the requirement to obtain a coastal development permit because it involved an improvement to an existing structure, and no exceptions to the existing structure exemption were applicable. (C.A. 4th, February 18, 2020.)
Madani v. Rabinowitz (2020)_ Cal.App.5th _ , 2020 WL 881412: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment, following a bench trial, finding that defendant’s fence that encroached on plaintiff’s property, and defendant’s old, inoperable cars parked on plaintiff’s driveway, were continuing encroachments that were ordered to be removed, but also concluding that plaintiff failed to prove his damages claim. The trial court properly concluded that the fence was a continuing encroachment. Plaintiff failed to show that the trial court erred in not awarding damages to plaintiff. (C.A. 2nd, February 24, 2020.)