|
- CEQA -
A plaintiff's claims under the California Environmental Quality Act challenging various land use approvals were time-barred because they were filed more than 30 days after a government agency filed a facially valid notice of decision.
Coalition for an Equitable Westlake/Macarthur Park v. City of Los Angeles - filed April 2, 2020, Second District, Div. Five
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 1586
Full text click here>
Streets and Highways Code section §103, together with its references to Public Resources Code sections §21080.5 and §21080.9, does not provide Caltrans with an exemption from the California
Environmental Quality Act's requirement that an environmental impact report be prepared and circulated before approving the construction of two freeway interchange ramps.
Citizens for Responsible Caltrans Decision v. Department of Transportation - filed March 24, 2020, Fourth District, Div. One
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 1344
Full text click here>
- EIR -
An air quality agency’s use of a near-peak baseline for a refinery’s air pollution emissions was supported by substantial evidence since federal regulators rely on the same baseline and because petroleum demand fluctuates on a daily basis. Where a proposed project would not affect the types and/or quantities of crude oil feedstocks that can be processed at a refinery, an air quality agency does not need to obtain information about the pre-project composition of the crude oil used in the refinery processes; no law requires an environmental impact report to include unnecessary data.
Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (Tesoro Refining and Marketing) - filed April 7, 2020, Second District, Div. Eight Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 1674
Full text click here >
- Land Use -
The substance and prerequisite of a local coastal program is the certified land use plan; there cannot be any implementation plan without the land use plan. There is no requirement that an amendment to a land use plan do something less extensive than to replace the plan entirely. Public Resources Code sections §30241 and §30242 do not contemplate a case-by-case or parcel-by-parcel determination of the feasibility of agriculture.
Mountainlands Conservancy v. California Coastal Commission (County of Los Angeles) - filed April 1, 2020, Second District, Div. Eight
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 1514
Full text click here >
- Lending -
A financial institution generally owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money; whether a duty exists depends on the weight of the factors set forth in Biakanja v. Irving, with a focus on whether this is a case where the plaintiff was intended to benefit from the transaction but was harmed by the defendant’s negligence in carrying it out.
Weimer v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC - filed April 2, 2020, Third District
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 1567
Full text click here >
- Trespass -
Plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.9 where they demonstrated concrete injury to real or personal property by the defendants’ trespass on a farmable parcel they held under a lease and damage to land that was under cultivation and intended for animal foraging; the fact that the trespass did not interfere with an active agricultural operation is not a bar to recovery of fees under §1021.9. A nonsignatory party to a contract cannot get an award of attorney fees under the contract if the party cannot demonstrate that it was a third-party beneficiary to the agreement.
Kelly v. House - filed March 23, 2020, publication ordered April 2, 2020, First District, Div. One
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 1582
Full text click here >
- Unlawful Detainer -
Failure to provide a legally sufficient notice is a complete defense to an unlawful detainer. The Violence Against Women Act notices set for forth in 24 Code of Federal Regulations Part 5.2005 are required to be served with a 10-day notice to pay rent or quit..
DHI Cherry Glen Associates, L.P. v. Gutierrez; Superior Court of California, County of Yolo - filed Nov. 15, 2019, publication ordered March 11, 2020
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 1227
Full text click here >
|