BEST BEST & KRIEGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW
|
|
- Susan Erika Hampton
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 INDIAN WELLS (760) IRVINE (949) LOS ANGELES (213) ONTARIO {909) BEST BEST & KRIEGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3750 University Avenue, Suite 400 Post Office Box Riverside, California (951) (951) Fax BBKiaw.com SACRAMENTO (916) SAN DIEGO (619) WALNUT CREEK (925) Michelle Ouellette (951) Michelle. Ouellette@bbklaw. com,-..,, IO!'"'c-Mr- cr-,1--1 -, f.. -11!.t... t. - V... :-\.., - " " "", - i u_ Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Associate Justices 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA NOV i:""r,r:::-:::::: }(.Jhmcr1 C;erk IJ8i)C;tv Re: Response Opposing the Requests for Depublication (Cal. Rules of Court, rule (b)); California Native Plant Society, et a!. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal. App.4th 957 (Sixth District Court of Appeal Case No. H032502) Dear Honorable Justices: Through this response letter, the League of California Cities ("League") respectfully opposes the letters submitted to the Supreme Court requesting depublication of the matter of California Native Plant Society, et a!. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957 ("CNPS"). The proponents for depublication of the CNPS decision significantly mischaracterize the result of the case's holdings. Contrary to their assertions, this decision pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") does not deviate from or confuse case law precedent regarding either the alternatives analysis in an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") or the bases by which agency decision-makers, in adopting findings at the time of project approval, can reject alternatives as infeasible. On the contrary, CNPS merely follows long-established statutory, regulatory, and case law authority in upholding the City of Santa Cruz's ("City") alternatives analysis pursuant to the "substantial evidence" standard, and it recognizes the legitimate legislative discretion the Santa Cruz City Council exercised in rejecting alternatives as infeasible. The opponents of publication misstate CNPS's holdings in a veiled attempt to improperly eliminate valid case law that supports local agency discretion in local land use decisions. The issues involved in the CNPS decision have particular relevance to the League and its members who are responsible for implementing CEQA at the local government level. In accordance with Rule (b), the League urges the Court to deny the requests to depublish this case.
2 A'fl'ORNEYSAT law Page 2 I. Interest of the League in the CNPS Decision The League is an association of 480 California cities dedicated to protecting and restoring local control to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare of their residents, and to enhance the quality of life for all Californians. The League is advised by its Legal Advocacy Committee, which is comprised of 24 city attorneys from all regions of the State. The Committee monitors litigation of concern to municipalities, and identifies those cases that are of statewide significance. The Committee has identified CNPS as being of statewide significance. The League and its members deal with CEQA and related land use and environmental issues on a regular basis, including those addressed in the CNPS decision. They often have the responsibility of reviewing projects pursuant to the guiding precedents set by CEQA case law, and therefore, have a strong interest in the development of CEQA case law, including the results of this case. II. Local Government Discretion for Local Land Use Decisions Is Properly Protected by the CNPS Decision Local governments enjoy broad discretion under the police power and Planning and Zoning Law for making local land use decisions. (Cal. Const., art. XI, 7; Gov. Code, et seq.) Project objectives in EIRs often reflect that broad discretion because CEQA does not specifically mandate the selection of the most environmentally protective alternative. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 4 7 Cal. 3d 376, 393.). Rather, CEQA's purpose is to guarantee that the public and governmental agencies are informed of environmental impacts of a project, consider those impacts before acting, and adopt feasible alternatives and mitigation measures to avoid or lessen adverse impacts, if feasible. (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 695.) (See We strongly disagree with the arguments of the parties seeking depublication of CNPS. Their unsupported mischaracterization of the implications of CNPS's holding is, in fact, an attempt to destroy or severely limit local agency discretion in analyzing and determining the feasibility of project alternatives under CEQ A. As this court held in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. OfSupervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576 (Goleta II), project approval under CEQA simply requires that decisions be informed and balanced, as such actions are "necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. " The CNPS Court appropriately recognized that removing such agency discretion would be incorrect, as the arguments advanced by those advocating depublication would, as a practical matter, have reviewing courts essentially make policy decisions that are properly within the legislative province of local government agencies. Therefore, CNPS should not be depublished because the views promulgated by those seeking depublication would lead to absurd results inconsistent with agency discretion under CEQA.
3 BEST BEST & RJUEGER AITORNEYS AT law Page 3 III. The Court Correctly Held That Alternatives May Be Deemed Infeasible Based on a Reasonable Balancing of Competing Policy Considerations as Supported by Substantial Evidence CNPS clarifies the statutory authorization afforded to agencies in evaluating the feasibility of project alternatives based on policy considerations. CEQA expressly indicates that feasibility analysis should include the evaluation of "social" and "other" considerations. (See Pub. Resources Code, [noting that feasibility "takes into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors."]; Pub. Resources Code, ["[I]n the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives..., individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof."]; Pub. Resources Code, 21081, subd. ( a)(3) [noting project approval may be proper despite significant effects, provided that findings regarding infeasibility of alternatives are made regarding "economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations"].) Under these mandates, the Court of Appeal looked to the long-established case law holding that feasibility analysis "encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. " (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal. App.3d 401, 417 [noting alternatives "infeasible in view of the social and economic realities of the region"].) CNPS merely clarifies this doctrine by holding that agencies may deem alternatives infeasible based on "social" and "other" considerations through a reasonable balancing of competing policy considerations, provided that such analysis is supported by substantial evidence. As Goleta II indicates, the wisdom for approving any development project is "a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests," in the "discretion of the local officials and their constituents." (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.) Therefore, CNPS properly held that it is within the discretion of the City's politically accountable decision-making body to determine the weight given to competing policy considerations, and to reject alternatives based on those considerations, provided that the decisions are supported by substantial evidence. IV. The Opponents' Reasons for Requesting Depublication Are Not Valid in Light of Their Misstatements Regarding the Implications of the CNPS Decision Contrary to many opponents' assertions, CNPS actually clarifies, rather than confuses, the interpretation of City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 341 ("City of Marina"), by untangling the two-step process identified for approving a project with unmitigated environmental impacts. (See CNPS, supra, 177 Cal. App.4th at p. 1002) As noted in CNPS, the first step of this analysis is to make findings of infeasibility. (Pub. Resources Code, 21081, subd. (a); State CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) The second step involves a weighing of any remaining environmental effects against project benefits to determine whether there are overriding considerations that would warrant project approval. (Pub. Resources Code, 21081, subd. (b); State CEQA Guidelines, ) Contrary to what has been said by the advocates of depublication (see, e. g., letter from California Oak Foundation), "balancing" may sometimes be perfectly appropriate in the findings addressing the feasibility of alternatives and mitigation, even though a different kind of balancing is also
4 ATIORNEYS AT law Page 4 appropriate with respect to the statement of overriding considerations. Balancing is not limited solely to the latter context. Significantly, CNPS clarifies the holding in City of Marina that these two steps are indeed separate, and the first step is a critical hurdle to proceeding with the second. As stated in City of Marina, "CEQA does not authorize an agency to proceed with a project that will have significant unmitigated effects on the environment, based simply on a weighing of those effects against the project's benefits, unless the measures necessary to mitigate those effects are truly infeasible." (Jd at ) In City of Marina, the respondent agency erroneously made findings that off-site transportation mitigation was legally infeasible based on an incorrect interpretation of the governing statutes. Accordingly, the Court rejected the agency's findings. Therefore, as the above-quoted language indicates, the second step of the analysis involving the weighing of environmental effects against project benefits could not support the approval of the project on its own, without first having made valid findings of infeasibility. Supporting this interpretation, the City of Marina decision also indicates that the project proponent could make revisions with proper findings of infeasibility other than those rejected by the Court. (See id at p. 369.) The City of Marina Court further indicated that great deference would have been given to the weighing of project benefits and remaining environmental effects if the Court could have agreed with the initial infeasibility findings. (See id at p. 368.) Thus, City of Marina merely addresses the applicability of overriding considerations when the infeasibility findings are held invalid. CNPS, on the other hand, deals with a completely different factual setting from that in City of Marina. In CNPS, the Court of Appeal found no indication of legal infeasibility. Rather, the Court found there was substantial evidence, based on social and other considerations, upon (CNPS, which the City properly based its findings that project alternatives were infeasible. supra, 177 Cal. App.4th at p ) Based on this first step of the analysis being met, the City was then justified in proceeding with the second step of weighing environmental effects against project benefits in its analysis. From the clear development of case law in these decisions, CNPS cannot be viewed as "sowing confusion" or creating "arguable tension" in the case law. Rather, CNPS clearly explains its proper reliance on and distinction from the prior case law. V. CNPS Does Not Condone Reliance Upon Narrow Project Objectives and a Reasonable Range of Alternatives Was In Fact Analyzed Contrary to some opponents' urgings, CNPS does not condone the selection of narrow project objectives, as described in Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1336 ("Preservation Action Council") and Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 14 7 Cal.App.4th 587 ("Uphold Our Heritage"). Although narrowly selected project objectives could arguably constrain the analysis of project alternatives, Preservation Action Council and Uphold Our Heritage clearly state the legal precedent that prevents such selection. CNPS does not conflict with or add confusion to the interpretation of these cases.
5 A'ITORNEYS AT law Page 5 Contrary to the suggestions from the advocates for depublication, the EIR in CNPS included ten project objectives that were stated in rather broad terms. The EIR also considered and analyzed several different project alternatives that were both potentially feasible and met most of the project objectives. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal properly concluded that the EIR provided a reasonable range of alternatives from which the City could make an informed decision. (See Goleta II, supra, 52 Ca1.3d at pp , 576; CEQA Guidelines, , subds. (c), (f).) VI. The Court Properly Applied The Substantial Evidence Standard Of Review Those advocating depublication of CNPS argue that the standard of review for whether an alternatives analysis is adequate and contains a reasonable range of alternatives involves a question of law. Based on this, they contend CNPS should not have been reviewed under the substantial evidence standard for factual disputes. However, these arguments significantly twist accepted legal precedent. In determining whether a lead agency has committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion, which is the test for an EIR, courts must adjust their scrutiny to "the nature of the alleged defect, depending on whether the claim is predominantly one of improper procedure or a dispute over the facts." (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Ca1.4th 412, 435.) Such an abuse of discretion is established only if the lead agency has "failed to proceed in a manner required by law" or if its decision is not supported by "substantial evidence." (Pub. Resources Code, [indicating the two standards of review]; Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 426.) Under the reasoning in Vineyard, a reviewing court should not find that an omission of information amounts to a "failure to proceed in a manner required by law," unless the petitioner can point to a clearly ascertainable legal duty that the respondent agency violated. The distinction between the "substantial evidence" and "failure to proceed" prongs of the relevant standard was clarified in Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, , 1204, 1213 ("Bakersfield Citizens"). In that case, the EIRs for two shopping centers were invalidated under the "failure to proceed" standard because they wholly omitted any analysis of the projects' urban decay impacts. Substantial evidence is the standard applied to conclusions reached in an EIR and findings that are based on such conclusions. [Citation.] [Petitioner] is not challenging a conclusion in the EIR's that the shopping centers would not indirectly cause urban decay or a finding adopted by the City. It is not arguing that the City used the wrong methodology in assessing whether urban decay will be an indirect effect of the project or challenging the validity of an expert's opinion on this topic. Rather, [petitioner's] argument is that the EIR's failed to comply with the information disclosure provisions of CEQA because they omitted any meaningful consideration of the question whether the shopping centers could, individually or cumulatively, trigger a series of events that ultimately cause urban decay.
6 ATIORNEYS AT law Page 6 (!d. at 1208, emphasis added.) Rarely do challenges to an EIR's adequacy focus on alleged procedural violations or allege that any analysis is completely missing from an EIR for an impact area. Instead, CEQA challengers usually focus on the contents and conclusions in an EIR, specifically on the "proper scope of the analysis, the appropriate methodology for studying an impact, the reliability or accuracy of data, the validity of technical opinions, and the feasibility of further studies. " (Barthelemy v. Chino Basin Mun. Water Dist. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1609, 1620, citation omitted.) However, these are ultimately factual determinations, which cannot be reviewed as a "failure to proceed in a manner required by law, " unless the petitioner also shows a failure to disclose conflicting evidence that precluded informed decision-making or informed public participation. (Ibid.) In determining the range of alternatives in an EIR, the applicable benchmark is the "'rule of reason' that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice." (State CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (f); see also In re Bay-Delta (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 1143, 1163; Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 565, 576.) CEQA allows considerable flexibility in fashioning a range of alternatives, in that "[ n]o ironclad rules can be imposed regarding the level of detail required in the consideration of alternatives."' (State CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a).) "CEQA establishes no categorical legal imperative as to the scope of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR". (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p ) Therefore, the choice of the particular alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR is a factual determination, and the law gives agencies broad discretion in this context under the "substantial evidence" standard. In CNPS, the Court of Appeal properly found that there was no procedural error because the EIR contained a reasonable range of alternatives from which an informed decision could be made, with extensive analysis provided for the four alternatives. The Petitioner's arguments made no contention that the City of Santa Cruz had failed to undertake the required alternatives analysis. They were merely related to the content of the alternatives analysis. Therefore, the substantial evidence standard was properly applied to the matters involving the analysis of the alternatives. VII. The Requests For Depublication Should Be Denied Based on the foregoing, CNPS does not create conflict or ambiguity in the case law, and there are no valid reasons supporting its depublication. Rather, CNPS follows long-established statutory, regulatory, and case law authority and recognizes the legitimate legislative discretion that local governments exercise for rejecting project alternatives as infeasible. The decision clarifies the bases upon which agency decision-makers may deem project alternatives infeasible, provided that their analysis is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the League respectfully requests that this Court deny the requested depublication of CNPS. Thank you for your consideration.
7 ATIORNEYS AT law Page 7 cc: Patrick Whitnell, League General Counsel
8 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL I certify and declare as follows: I am over the age of 18, and not a party to this action. My business address is : 3750 University Avenue, Suite 400 P.O. Box 1028 Riverside, CA which is located in Riverside County where the mailing described below took place. I am familiar with the business practice at my place of business for the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. On, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: Response Opposing the Requests for Depublication (Cal. Rules of Court, rule (b)); California Native Plant Society, et al. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cai.App.4th 957 (Sixth District Court of Appeal Case No. H032502) to the interested parties in this action, listed on the following Service List by causing a true copy thereof to be placed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully paid in the area designated for outgoing mail. I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at Riverside, California, addressed as follows: See Service List on Next Page I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on, at Riverside, California.
9 SERVICE LIST John G. Barisone Atchison Barisone Condotti & Kovacevich 333 Church Street Santa Cruz, CA Attorneys for Defendants/Respondents James G. Moose Amy Higuera Remy, Thomas, Moose & Manley 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 210 Sacramento, CA Attorneys for Defendants/Respondents Rose M. Zoia Attorney at Law 50 Old Courthouse, Ste #401 Santa Rosa, CA Attorney for San Francisco Preservation Consortium and We ARE Marina Del Ray Michael W. Stamp Attorney at Law 479 Pacific Street, Suite 1 Monterey, CA Attorney for Save Our Carmel River William P. Parkin Wittwer & Parkin 147 South River Street, Suite 221 Santa Cruz, CA Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Appellants Arthur Sidney Pugsley Chatten-Brown & Carstens 2601 Ocean Park Blvd, Ste 205 Santa Monica, CA Attorney for Chatten-Brown & Cartens Paige Janet Swartley California Preservation Foundation 5 Third Street, Suite 424 San Francisco, CA Attorney for California Preservation Foundation Paige Janet Swartley Bingham McCutchen LLP 3 Embarcadero Ctr # 1800 San Francisco, CA Attorney for California Preservation Foundation Thomas N. Lippe Brian Roberts Turner Law Offices of Thomas N. Lippe National Trust for Historic Preservation 329 Bryant Street, Suite 3-D 5 Third Street, Ste 707 San Francisco, CA San Francisco, CA Attorney for California Oak Foundation, Thomas Lippe Attorney for National Trust for Historic Preservation Charity Kenyon Kenyon Yeates, LLP 2001 N Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA Attorney for Kenyon Yeates LLP Clerk of the Court Santa Cruz County Superior Court Civil Division 701 Ocean Street, Room 110 Santa Cruz, CA Clerk of the Court Sixth District Court of Appeal 333 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 1060 San Jose, CA Hon. Chief Justice George & Associate Justices Supreme Court of California 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA Office of the Attorney General 1300 "I" Street P.O. Box Sacramento, CA RVPUB\SMARTIN\
March 16, Via TrueFiling
Whitman F. Manley wmanley@rmmenvirolaw.com Via TrueFiling Hon. Dennis M. Perluss, Presiding Justice Hon. John L. Segal, Associate Justice Hon. Kerry R. Bensinger, Associate Justice California Court of
More informationDecember 17, (Third District Court of Appeal Case No. C066996)
REMY I MOOSE I MANLEY LLP Whitman F. Manley wma nley@rmmenvirolaw.com The Honorable William J. Murray The Honorable Vance W. Raye The Honorable Harry E. Hull California Court of A peal, Third Appellate
More informationREMY I MOOSE I MANLEY LLP. September 23, 2015
ORIGINAl REMY I MOOSE I MANLEY LLP Sabrina V. Teller steller@rrnmenvirolaw.com VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS The Honorable Judith L. Haller, Acting Presiding Justice The Honorable Cynthia Aaron, Associate Justice
More informationMarch 25, Request for Publication Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (First District Court of Appeal Case No.
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Co-un-of Appt~al Firs,t Appellate.District FILED MAR 2 6 2013 REMY M 0 0 S E I M A N L E Diana Herbert, Clerk March 25, 2013 Ltby The Honorable William R. McGuiness, Administrative
More informationIN THE SUPR E ME COUR T OF THE STAT E OF CALIFORNIA
No. S132972 IN THE SUPR E ME COUR T OF THE STAT E OF CALIFORNIA VINEYARD AREA CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE GROWTH, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Petitioners v. CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, Defendant and Respondent,
More informationCentex Homes v. Superior Court (City of San Diego)
MICHAEL M. POLLAK SCOTT J. VIDA GIRARD FISHER DANIEL P. BARER JUDY L. McKELVEY LAWRENCE J. SHER HAMED AMIRI GHAEMMAGHAMI JUDY A. BARNWELL ANNAL. BIRENBAUM VICTORIA L. GUNTHER POLLAK, VIDA & FISHER ATTORNEYS
More information555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 Sacramento, California tel fax
meyers nave 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 Sacramento, California 95814 tel 916.556.1531 fax 916.556.1516 www.meyersnave.com Ruthann G. Ziegler rziegler@meyersnave.com Via Federal Express Overnight Mail
More informationRequest for Publication
June 24, 2016 IVAN DELVENTHAL idelventhal@publiclawgroup.com 415.848.7218 The Honorable Presiding Justice and Associate Justices Court of Appeal First Appellate District, Division Three 350 McAllister
More informationJAN - 3 2Q17. January 3, 201?
~ ^ - -, g R A N D Donald E.Sobelmon Downey Brand LlP dsobelman@downeybrand.com 455 Market Street, Suite 1500 415.848.4824 Direct San Francisco, CA 94105 415.848.4831 Fax 415.848.4800 Main downeybrand.com
More informationColifornio Stote Association of Counties
Colifornio Stote Association of Counties 1100 K Street Suite 101 Socromento (olilornio 95814 Te.'cphone 916.327.7500 916.441.5507 Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice 350 McAllister Street San Francisco,
More informationApril 22, Request for Publication: Center for Biological Diversity v. California Fish and Game Commission, Case No. A127555
Whitman F. Manley wmanley@rtmmlaw.com VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS The Honorable J. Anthony Kline, Presiding Justice California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA
More informationREMY, THOMAS, MOOSE and MANLEY, LLP ATIORNEYS AT LAW
MICIIAF.L II REMY 19 4-2003 Tl A A TIIOMAS OF COUNSEL JAMES G MOOSE WI IlTMAN F MA LEY ANDREA K LEISY TIFFA Y K WRIGHT ABRJ A V TELLER ASHLE T CROCKER REMY, THOMAS, MOOSE and MANLEY, LLP ATIORNEYS AT LAW
More informationCalifornia State Association of Counties
California State Association of Counties ll 00 K Srreet Suite 101 Socromento Colifomic 91814 9163277500 916.441.5107 Honorable Tani Cantil-Sak:auye, Chief Justice California Supreme Court 350 McAllister
More informationNOTES FOR CEQA AT 40 CONFERENCE PRESENTATION
NOTES FOR CEQA AT 40 CONFERENCE PRESENTATION My purpose: Provide a general overview of the role the courts have played over the last 40 years in the enforcement and development of CEQA. My observation
More informationCalifornia State Association of Counties
California State Association of Counties March 11, 2010 1100 K Street Suite 101 Sacramento California 95814 Telephone 916.327.7500 Fa0imile 916.441.5507 Honorable Ronald M. George California Supreme Court
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Petitioner. Respondent. Real Party in Interest.
Supreme Court Case No. S194708 4th App. Dist., Div. Three, Case No. G044138 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIERRA CLUB, Petitioner vs. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT APPELLANT S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OPENING BRIEF
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERNEST LANDRY, Defendant and Appellant. H040337 (Santa Clara County
More information555 1i h Street, Suite 1500 Oakland, California tel (510} fax (510}
meyers nave 555 1i h Street, Suite 1500 Oakland, California 94607 tel (510} 808-2000 fax (510} 444-1108 www.meyersnave.com Arthur A. Hartinger Attorney at Law aha rti nger@ meye rsnave.com SUPREME COURT
More informationRESPOND TO ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE. March 3, 2011
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW www. awa rro rn eys. com RESPOND TO ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE Email: wmiliband@awattorneys.com Direct Dial: (949) 250-5416 Orange County 18881 Von Karman Ave., Suite
More informationFll~ED AUG J, i\llct-let:sow- II I I II Ill I II Ill Ill II I. Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code Section 6103
Fll~ED AUG 05 2013 CONNIE MAZZEI,, -r CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR cou_r. AAlL DEPUfY - -J, i\llct-let:sow- Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code Section 6103 16 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
4th Court of Appeal No. G036362 Orange County Superior Court No. 04NF2856 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE LERCY WILLIAMS PETITIONER, v. SUPERIOR COURT
More informationMANHATTAN TOWERS 1230 ROSECRANS AVENUE, SUITE 110 MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA (310) FAX (310)
MICHAEL JENKINS CHRISTI HOGIN MARK D. HENSLEY BRADLEY E. WOHLENBERG KARL H. BERGER GREGG KOVACEVICH JOHN C. COTTI ELIZABETH M. CALCIANO LAUREN B. FELDMAN JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP A LAW PARTNERSHIP MANHATTAN
More informationguerilla war of attrition by which project opponents wear out project proponents."
Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of California January 24, 2008 Page 3 (1988) 200 Cal. App. 3d 337,349 [cone. opn. by Blease, J.].) So are rules governing exhaustion
More informationmeyers nave A Commitment to Public Law
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 Sacramento, California 95814 tel {916) 556-1531 fax {916) 556-1516 www.meyersnave.com Ruthann G. Ziegler Attorney at Law rziegler@meyersnave.com meyers nave A Commitment to
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Filed 12/4/17 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
More informationAttorney for Petitioners RICHARD SANDER and JOE HICKS COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
1 3 1 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations JAMES M. CHADWICK, Cal. Bar No. 1 jchadwick@sheppardmullin.com GUYLYN R. CUMMINS, Cal.
More informationCase No. S IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
[See fee exemption, Gov. Code 6103] Case No. S219783 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA SIERRA CLUB, REVIVE THE SAN JOAQUIN, and LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FRESNO Petitioners and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL MINUTE ORDER
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL MINUTE ORDER DATE: 04/19/2013 TIME: 03:36:00 PM JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Timothy Taylor CLERK: Patricia Ashworth REPORTER/ERM: Not Reported
More informationCalifornia State Association of Counties
California State Association of Counties March 25,2011 1100 K Srreet Suite 101 Sacramento California 95614 """ 916.327.7500 Focsimik 916.441.5507 California Court of Appeal, First District, Division Three
More informationDear Chief Justice George and Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court:
California Supreme Court 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Re: County of Orange v. Barratt American, Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 420 Amicus Curiae Letter In Support of Review (Rule
More informationAPPELLANTS AMENDED OPENING BRIEF
NO. C078249 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY, et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, et al., Respondents
More informationDecember 10, Cohen v. DIRECTV, No. S177734
December 10, 2009 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS LETTER IN OPPOSITION TO DEPUBLICATION REQUEST California Rules of Court, rule 8.1125(b) Honorable Ronald M. George, Chief Justice Honorable Joyce L. Kennard, Associate
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 8/12/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT FRIENDS OF THE WILLOW GLEN TRESTLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, H041563 (Santa Clara County
More informationB CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE. LINDA DE ROGATIS, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
B254024 CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE LINDA DE ROGATIS, et al., v. Plaintiffs and Appellants, KAREN MICHELLE SHAINSKY, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR
More informationLAW OFFICES OF ALAN WALTNER
LAW OFFICES OF ALAN WALTNER 779 DOLORES STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94110 TEL (415) 641-4641 WALTNERLAW@GMAIL.COM Memorandum Date: To: Fort Ord Reuse Authority Board of Directors From: Alan Waltner,
More informationgold forb I i pma n attorneys
gold forb I i pma n attorneys 1300 Clay Street, Eleventh Floor Oakland, California 94612 510 836-6336 M David Kroot John T. Nagle Polly V. Marshall Lynn Hutchins Koren M. Tiedemann Thomas H. Webber John
More informationExistence and Scope of the Common Interest Privilege Before and After Ceres
Existence and Scope of the Common Interest Privilege Before and After Ceres Wednesday, May 7, 2014 General Session; 1:00 2:45 p.m. Sarah E. Owsowitz, Best Best & Krieger League of California Cities 2014
More informationJonathan Arvizu v. City of Pasadena Request for Publication Second District Case No.: B Superior Court Case No.: BC550929
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY / CIVIL DIVI S IO N CITY PROSECUTOR March 19, 2018 Associate Justice Lee Smalley Edmons Associate Justice Anne. H. Egerton Pro Tern Justice Brian S. Currey Clerk of Court Second
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
LAW OFFICES OF DONALD B. MOONEY DONALD B. MOONEY (CA Bar # 153721 129 C Street, Suite 2 Davis, California 95616 Telephone: (530 758-2377 Facsimile: (530 758-7169 dbmooney@dcn.org Attorneys for Petitioner
More informationAT T ORNEYS AT LAW WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD SUIT E 980 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA August 7, 2014
M IC H AEL M. POLLAK SCOTT J. VIDA D AN IEL P. BAR ER * JU D Y L. M ckelvey LAWRENCE J. SHER H AM ED AM IR I GH AEM M AGH AM I JUDY A. BARNWELL ANNA L. BIRENBAUM VICTORIA L. GUNTHER PO LLA K, VIDA & FIS
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Craig A. Sherman, Esq. (Cal. Bar No. 171224) LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG A. SHERMAN 1901 First Avenue, Ste. 335 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 702-7892 Facsimile: (619) 702-9291 Attorneys for Petitioner
More informationENDEMAN, LINCOLN, TUREK & HEATER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 600 "B" STREET, SUITE 2400 SAN DIEGO, CA December 26, 2012
KENNETH C. TUREK HENRY E. HEATER DAVID SEMELSBERGER JAMES C. ALLEN GEORGE H. KAELIN Ill LINDA B. REICH DAVID M. DAFTARY DONALD R. LINCOLN OF COUNSEL RONALD L. ENDEMAN RETIRED ENDEMAN, LINCOLN, TUREK &
More informationCOpy RECEIVED. litttikellate 1.31 District JUN JUN Case No
Case No. 11041563 COpy IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT FRIENDS OF THE WILLOW GLEN TRESTLEoettean litttikellate 1.31 District association, F Plaintiff Respondent
More informationFriends of the Willow Glen Trestle v. City of San Jose
Reporter 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 676 Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle v. City of San Jose Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District August 12, 2016, Opinion Filed H041563 FRIENDS OF THE WILLOW
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 10/23/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE SAVE LAFAYETTE TREES et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LAFAYETTE,
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D052237
Filed 1/9/09; pub. & mod. order 1/30/09 (see end of opn.) COURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIVERWATCH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. D052237 (San Diego
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 11/12/08 Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE, et al, Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, et al, Case Nos.: 34-2015-80002005 [Lead
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION II CALIFORNIA PARKING SERVICES, INC. Plaintiff and Appellant
No. E050306 SC No. RIC 535124 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION II CALIFORNIA PARKING SERVICES, INC. Plaintiff and Appellant VS SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO
More informationof Citizens for Beach Rights v. City of San Diego, Case No. D069638, Filed Filed March March 28, 28, Haller: and Rules of Court, rule (c).
Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District. Division One Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District. Division One Kevin J. Lane, Clerk/Administrator 1901 Harrison 1 Street - Suite - Suite 900 Kevin J.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A149501
Filed 9/15/17 Placerville Historic Preservation League v. Judicial Council of California CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties
More information2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA (800) (916) (916) Fax
AssociATION OF SouTHERN CALIFORNIA DEFENSE CouNSEL 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95833 (800) 564-6791 (916) 239-4082 (916) 924-7323- Fax ascdc@camgmt.com www.ascdc.org OFFICERS PRESIDENT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 3/23/17; mod. and pub. order 5/25/17 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE FRIENDS OF OUTLET CREEK, v. Plaintiff and Appellant,
More information400 Capäol Mall, 27th Floor. MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN & GIRARD F Meredith Packer Carey November 12, 2015
400 Capäol Mall, 27th Floor MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN & GIRARD F 916.321.4555 Meredith Packer Carey mgarey@kmtg.com The Honorable Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice, and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C. D. Michel - S.B.N. 1 Sean A. Brady - S.B.N. MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, LLP E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 00 Long Beach, CA 00 Telephone: -1- Facsimile: -1- Attorneys for Proposed Relator SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE: JUDGE: August 24,2016 HON. SHELLEYANNE W. L. CHANG DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 24 E. HIGGINBOTHAM TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, a California
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, Defendant and Respondent, Case
More informationCASE NO. B IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION: FOUR
CASE NO. B284093 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION: FOUR FIX THE CITY, INC. Petitioner/Plaintiff and Respondent and Cross-Appellant. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES
More informationCENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent.
Page 1 CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. B235039 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE
More information50 of 103 DOCUMENTS. No. B COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE
Page 1 50 of 103 DOCUMENTS AL LARSON BOAT SHOP, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LONG BEACH et al., Defendants and Appellants. No. B063820. COURT
More informationCACJ CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
November 2, 2017 The Honorable Jorge E. Navarrete Clerk, California Supreme Court Supreme Court of California 455 Golden Gate Ave., Ground Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Please respond to: JOHN T. PHILIPSBORN
More informationHAROLD P. STURGEON, Plaintiff and Petitioner, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants and Respondents, and
S190318 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAROLD P. STURGEON, Plaintiff and Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants and Respondents, and SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY
More informationJOHN TEIXEIRA, et al., Appellants, vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Appellees. Northern District of California REHEARING EN BANG
Case: 13-17132, 07/27/2016, ID: 10065825, DktEntry: 81, Page 1 of 26 Appellate Case No.: 13-17132 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN TEIXEIRA, et al., Appellants, vs. COUNTY
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
William C. Kuhs, State Bar No. 39217 Robert G. Kuhs, State Bar No. 160291 Kuhs & Parker P. O. Box 2205 1200 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 200 Bakersfield, CA 93303 Telephone: (661 322-4004 Facsimile: (661 322-2906
More informationNos and UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 11-55461 12/22/2011 ID: 8009906 DktEntry: 32 Page: 1 of 16 Nos. 11-55460 and 11-55461 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PACIFIC SHORES PROPERTIES, LLC et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1 1 1 1 Stuart M. Flashman (SBN 1) Ocean View Dr. Oakland, CA -1 Telephone/Fax: () - e-mail: stu@stuflash.com Attorney for Petitioner and Plaintiff Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund IN
More informationCase 5:08-cv RMW Document 7 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 7
Case 5:08-cv-00296-RMW Document 7 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 RDMTIND G. BROWN TR. Attorney General of the State of California DANE R. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General HUE L.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO
No. E067711 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO MACY S WEST STORES, INC., DBA MACY S, AND MACY S, INC., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
More informationLESHER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents v. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK, Defendant and Appellant
LESHER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents v. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK, Defendant and Appellant Supreme Court of California 52 Cal. 3d 531 (1990) JUDGES: Opinion by Eagleson, J. Lucas,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DAVID R. DAVIS, BRIAN GOLDSTEIN, JACOB DANIEL HILL, ERIC FEDER, PAUL COHEN, CHRIS BUTLER, SCOTT AUSTIN, JILL BROWN AND LISA SIEGEL,
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D068185
Filed 10/14/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. D068185 (Super.
More informationAttorneys far Amici Curiae LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, and ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES
Civil Case No. 5214061 IN TIDE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA FRIENDS OF THE COLLEGE OF SAN MATEO GARDENS, ~U~ ~ ~~~~~ Plaintiff and Respondent,,~~ ~..,~ v. ~. F,~~ SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 6/25/14; pub. order 7/22/14 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE WILLIAM JEFFERSON & CO., INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
More informationCourt of Appeal No. A COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR
Court of Appeal No. A116389 COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR MICHAEL CHRISTOPH KREUTZER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
More informationThe Role and Responsibilities of LAFCO in the CEQA Process
The Role and Responsibilities of LAFCO in the CEQA Process PRESENTED BY Mala Subramanian Best Best & Krieger 2016 Best Best & Krieger LLP History of CEQA California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ) Adopted
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
.f;\tl:. f... it.h L U U' CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY RECE(JJ1TGINAL FTLE John Buse (SBN 163156 ~! D 21 I Adam Keats (SBN 191157 OCT 01. 351 California St., Suite 600 D 2012 OCT 1 5 2012 311 San Francisco,
More informationDecember 30, Simona Wilson v. Southern California Edison Company 2d Civil No. B Request to file supplemental letter brief
GMSR Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP Law Offices 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, 12 1 h Floor Los Angeles, California 90036 (310) 859-7811 Fax (310) 276-5261 www.gmsr.com Hon. Norman L. Epstein, Presiding
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Patricia Ihara SBN 180290 PMB 139 4521 Campus Drive Irvine, CA 92612 (949)733-0746 Attorney on Appeal for Defendant/Appellant SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
More informationThe Highway 68 Coalition v. County of Monterey. Opinion
The Highway 68 Coalition v. County of Monterey Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District July 31, 2017, Opinion Filed H042891 Reporter 14 Cal. App. 5th 883 *; 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 744 **;
More informationFresno County Superior Court, Case No. 1OCECGO2 116 The Honorable Jeffrey Y. Hamilton, Judge
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SHERIFF CLAY PARKER, TEHAMA COUNTY SHERIFF; HERB BAUER SPORTING GOODS; CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION; ABLE S SPORTING,
More informationFILED to the ALPR data sought in this case. APR
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION Protecting Rights and Promoting Freedom on the Electronic Frontier April 17, 2017 Honorable Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye and Honorable Associate Justices California
More informationSUPPLEMENT TO UPDATE ON LAND USE AND CEQA CASES
611 ANTON BOULEVARD, FOURTEENTH FLOOR COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626-1931 DIRECT ALL MAIL TO: POST OFFICE BOX 1950 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 TELEPHONE 714-641-5100 FACSIMILE 714-546-9035 INTERNET
More informationFiled 2/26/19; Modified and Certified for Partial Publication on 3/20/19 (order attached)
Filed 2/26/19; Modified and Certified for Partial Publication on 3/20/19 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Amador) ---- IONE VALLEY LAND, AIR,
More informationAttorneys for Respondents 15 TURN DOWN THE LIGHTS, 16 CASE NO. M Petitioner, 18 v.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 M. CHRISTINE DAVI, SBN 178389 City Attorney CITY OF MONTEREY City Hall Monterey, California 93940 Telephone: (831) 646-3915 Facsimile: (831) 373-1634 Email: davi@ci.monterey.ca.
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Rory R. Wicks (SBN 0 Christian C. Polychron (SBN 00 COAST LAW GROUP LLP Saxony Road, Suite 0 Encinitas, California 0 Tel: 0..0 Fax: 0.. Attorneys for Petitioner THE CALIFORNIA CHAPARRAL INSTITUTE SUPERIOR
More informationCALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF APPELLATE LAWYERS
President Margaret M. Grignon Grignon Law Firm LLP 6621 E. Pacific Coast Hwy., Ste. 200 Long Beach, CA 90803 First Vice President Susan Brandt-Hawley Brandt-Hawley Law Group P.O. Box 1659 Glen Ellen, CA
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO
Case No. E060047 Exempt from Fees (Gov. Code, 6103) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Plaintiff, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
1 Bingham McCutchen LLP JAMES J. DRAGNA (SBN 919) COLIN C. WEST (SBN 1809) THOMAS S. HIXSON (SBN 190) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 9111-067 Telephone: 1.9.000 Facsimile: 1.9.6 6 7 8 9 10
More informationCONTRA COSTA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT October 14, 2015 (Agenda)
CONTRA COSTA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT October 14, 2015 (Agenda) LAFCO 14-05: Reorganization 186 (Magee Ranch) Annexations to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD)
More informationin furtherance of and in response to its Tentative Decision dated 1/4/2010 addressing various matters
1 1 Thomas H. Lambert, Esq. (Bar No. ) Lambert Law Corporation P.O. Box 0 San Diego, CA -0 Telephone: () -00 Fax: () - E-mail: THL@LambertLawCorp.com Attorney for Wyatt J. Taubman In the Matter of SUPERIOR
More informationJohn G. Barisone Atchison, Barisone, Condotti & Kovacevich 333 Church Street Santa Cruz, CA THE INITIATIVE PROCESS AFTER PROPOSITION 218
John G. Barisone Atchison, Barisone, Condotti & Kovacevich 333 Church Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060 THE INITIATIVE PROCESS AFTER PROPOSITION 218 T ABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 2. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (Sacramento) ----
Filed 11/7/06 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- LEILA J. LEVI et al., v. Plaintiffs and Appellants, JACK O CONNELL,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant, LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, et al.
Supreme Court Case No. S195852 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TODAY S FRESH START, INC., Plaintiff, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant, vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, et al.,
More informationThis letter also serves as a request for records pursuant to the CPRA. See section 3, below.
February 16, 2018 Phone: 510-594-2600 Sven Miller Acting Commander Office of Community Outreach and Media Relations California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 942898 Sacramento, CA 94298-001 comr@chp.ca.gov Sent
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. Case No.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Brian Gaffney, SBN 1 Thomas N. Lippe, SBN 0 Kelly A. Franger, SBN Bryant St., Suite D San Francisco, California Tel: (1) -00 Fax: (1) -0 Attorneys for Plaintiffs: ALAMEDA CREEK ALLIANCE
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
B252326 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT Division 8 SEDA GALSTIAN AGHAIAN, et al., Plaintiffs & Appellants, vs. SHAHEN MINASSIAN, Defendant & Respondent. Appeal from
More informationAugust 3, Re: Request for Publication of Jacobs v. Coldwell Banker B (July 25, 2017)
Page 1 Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert Associate Justice Steven Z. Perren Associate Justice Martin J. Tangeman Court of Appeal of the State of California 333 West Santa Clara Street Suite 1060 San Jose,
More informationCase 2:14-cv GW-AS Document 6 Filed 07/07/14 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:389
Case :-cv-0-gw-as Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: Tel. ()-000 0 Bobby Samini, Esq. (SBN ) Telephone: () -000 Facsimile: () -00 Attorney for Respondent, DONALD T. STERLING UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationPAciFIC LEGAL FouNDATION
PAciFIC LEGAL FouNDATION R[CEIVED JUL ~ 5 (014 Honorable Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye Supreme Court of California 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 941 02-4 797 CLERK SUPF;l:fvJE COURT
More informationMEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, CITY OF ELK GROVE AND THE WILTON RANCHERIA
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, CITY OF ELK GROVE AND THE WILTON RANCHERIA This Memorandum of Understanding ( Agreement ) is entered into this day of 2011, among the County
More information