The state Supreme Court has agreed hear to an unusual case from the Sonoma County city of Cotati that involves both mobile home rent control and an alleged strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).
Several years ago, Cotati implemented mobile home rent control in response to rapidly rising rents. Mobile home park owners in town sued in federal court, arguing that the rent control ordinance was unconstitutional. Cotati responded by filing a lawsuit in state court that sought to have the ordinance declared lawful. The mobile home park owners contended that Cotati's state court litigation was a SLAPP suit intended to prevent them from having their day in federal court.
A trial court ruled against Cotati but the First District Court of Appeal reversed the decision and remanded the case back to the trial court in July. The appellate panel ruled that Cotati's lawsuit sought to resolve the same constitutional issues that mobile home park owners had raised themselves. The court held that Cotati's lawsuit served the public interest and did not result in additional expense or inconvenience for the park owners.
The state high court has not yet set a date for oral arguments. The case is City of Cotati v. Gene Cashman, No. S099999, 2001 DJDAR 7375.
In the clearest decision to date on antiquated subdivisions, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled that subdivision maps recorded prior to the first version of the Subdivision Map Act in 1893 do not create legal parcels.
When taking property by eminent domain, a city does not have to pay for the property's value as a potential garbage dump, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court held that the farmland's value as a landfill was too speculative under eminent domain law.
The City of Palm Springs has agreed to pay $1.2 million to a conservation organization because the city built a golf course on land donated to the city as desert preserve. The settlement apparently ends the protracted litigation between the city and the Living Desert Reserve of Palm Desert.
An Orange County Superior Court judge has reversed a portion of a $94.5 million judgment against the City of San Diego in an inverse condemnation case. Judge Raymond Ikola approved the city's request for a new trial on $29.2 million worth of damages related to breach of contract, but he upheld a jury's remaining $65.3 million award to businessman Roque de la Fuente II.
The validity of a growth-control initiative in Alameda County has been upheld by a trial court. Superior Court Judge James Richardson in October issued final orders in a case filed by homebuilders over Measure D, which voters approved in November 2000 (see CP&DR, December 2000).
Farmers in the Klamath Basin of far northern California and southern Oregon have filed a $1 billion takings lawsuit against the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation over the government's decision to greatly reduce water delivery to farms in the area (see CP&DR Environment Watch, October 2001).
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed members of the building industry to intervene in a lawsuit that environmentalists filed regarding the San Diego Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP).
Constructing a golf course is a legitimate use of public parkland, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court ruled against an Orange County citizens group that alleged the county government was improperly using land dedicated for a park.
An environmental assessment of a 5,000-acre federal land exchange in Las Vegas did not sufficiently address the question of the cumulative air-quality impacts of developing the property, a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. The court held that federal officials may be required to prepare an environmental impact statement.
A city resolution restricting parking on certain residential streets to residents with parking permits was categorically exempt from environmental review, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
An exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act for construction of a sea wall below two houses has been upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the potential collapse of a bluff could threaten public safety and qualified for an emergency exemption under CEQA.
In a case that touched on redevelopment law, the California Environmental Quality Act and general plan compatibility, an appellate court has upheld San Francisco's handling of a project on the site of the historic Emporium department store.
