|
- CA Coastal Act -
The California Coastal Act provisions governing local coastal programs and the express limits imposed on California Coastal Commission's jurisdiction with regard to development under an LCP–have no application to a port district, or a port district's master plan. Nothing prevents Commission from delineating the statewide policies in its findings, explaining a master plan's deficiencies in detail, or suggesting what sorts of visitor facilities meet the act's goals.
San Diego Unified Port District v. California Coastal Commission (Sunroad Marina Partners) - filed Sept. 7, 2018, publication ordered Oct. 1, 2018, First District, Div. One
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 4880
Full text click here >
- CEQA -
An active dispute about the county's compliance with an earlier writ, as well as whether its actions comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, is ripe for adjudication.
Golden Door Properties v. County of San Diego - filed Sept. 28, 2018, Fourth District, Div. One
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 4847
Full text click here>
A challenge to the county's approval of proposed changes to a project was barred by res judicata where the same allegations of non-compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act were raised by a different party in a prior lawsuit. The preparation of a water supply assessment is not required for a plan that is not subject to further CEQA review.
Inland Oversight Committee v. City of San Bernardino (First American Title Insurance Co.) - filed Sept. 14, 2018, publication ordered Sept. 27, 2018, Fourth District, Div. Two
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 4799
Full text click here>
The prior demolition of a structure that had existed on a property was not a component of the residential construction project now being proposed for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act where the city had deemed the structure a public nuisance in need of abatement before the property owners applied for a coastal development permit allowing them to build a home on the property.
Bottini v. City of San Diego - filed Sept. 18, 2018, Fourth District, Div. One
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 4589
Full text click here>
- Deed of Trust -
Language in a deed of trust allowing a lender to incur attorney fees to protest its interest is not a provision that attorney fees can be awarded to the lender. It simply allows the fees to be added to the secured debt like any other expense the lender may incur in protecting its interest.
Hart v. Clear Recon Corporation - filed Sept. 18, 2018, Second District, Div. Eight
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 4609
Full text click here >
A party who was not a signatory to a deed of trust was entitled to seek attorney fees in accordance with the deed where the party stood in the shoes of a signatory and the party was subjected to suit as though it was a signatory. The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act provides no independent basis for awarding attorney fees.
Chacker v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al. - filed Sept. 19, 2018, Second District, Div. Five
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 4613
Full text click here >
- General Plan Amendment -
Under Government Code Sec. 65301.5, a general plan amendment is reviewable under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1085 as a legislative act. If a city charter does not impose clear and explicit limitation regarding the size of the "geographic area" that may be the subject of an amendment, the courts cannot imply such limitation. A city charter's specification that only certain government agents can propose an amendment is not a limitation on whether a private party may request the government's consideration of a proposal.
Westsiders Opposed to Overdevelopment v. City of Los Angeles (Philena Properties) - filed Oct. 1, 2018, Second District, Div. Eight
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 4876
Full text click here>
- Nonjudicial Foreclosure -
A husband and wife who used community funds to make payments on the principal for the mortgage for a home that had been acquired by the wife prior to their marriage had a community interest in the home. Civil Code Sec. 2924c limits a beneficiary's contractual power of sale by giving the trustor a right to cure a default and reinstate the loan within the stated time, even if the beneficiary does not voluntarily agree. A statutory duty under the nonjudicial foreclosure statutes is sufficient to support a negligence cause of action.
Turner v. Seterus, Inc. - filed Sept. 24, 2018, Third District
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 4672
Full text click here >
- Res Judicata -
Res judicata bars a challenge to the government's approval of a project if all of the arguments are identical to those raised and argued in a prior action. When an alleged harm impacts the public rather than a specific entity, the privity analysis must focus on the "community of interest" rather than the relationship between the parties. A challenge to an ordinance, as applied to a specific project, does not involve a question of law.
Atwell v. City of Rohnert Park (Wal-Mart Stores) - filed Sept. 18, 2018, publication ordered Sept. 26, 2018, First District, Div. One
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 4743
Full text click here >
|