Legal Digest

The City Council has changed its non-agenda public comment ordinance, but they're not off the hook yet. >>read more

An appellate court has denied an anti-SLAPP motion to strike in a long-running dispute between rival developers and the City of Carson. >>read more

Like a monster that’s been hiding in the basement for decades, rent control is rearing its head in the Bay Area. Whether it is an ugly countenance or a smiling face is a matter of perspective. >>read more

Overturning the decision of a trial judge, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that the City of Palm Springs’s decision to eliminate minimum residential densities from its general plan is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. >>read more

Overturning a trial judge, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that the private water company Cadiz Inc. and two public agencies did not violate the California Environmental Quality Act in moving forward a groundwater pumping and restoration project in San Bernardino County.

The Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental groups had argued that the project's environmental review violated CEQA on two major points: First, by making the Santa Margarita Water District the lead agency rather than San Bernardino County; and second, by writing the project description in such a way that the project was characterized as a water conservation project even though it will result in a net loss of water. 

Orange County Superior Court Judge Gail Andrea Andler ruled in favor of the environmental plaintiffs. But the Fourth District overturned her on all of the plaintiffs' claims. >>read more

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on April 25 to take a case from Connecticut that would have overturned the 1985 case Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U. S. 172, a pre-First English case in which the court ruled that property owners seeking to a regulatory taking case in federal court have to first ensure that all administrative remedies at the local or state level are exhausted and then seek compensation through whatever mechanism is provided by the state.

However, Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy dissented from the denial of certiorari in Arrigoni Enterprises v. Town of Durham, saying they wanted to use the case to revisit the questions about Williamson County raised in the dissent in the 2005 Supreme Court case, San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323. That case involving a dispute going back decades over payment of an in-lieu fee or provision of replacement units when a hotel is converted from residential to tourist use. >>read more

In repealing a medical marijuana ordinance that a referendum sought to overturn, the Kern County Board of Supervisors erred in also repealing the underlying ordinance that the referendum's backers were seeking to reinstate, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has ruled. It's the third appellate ruling in a medical marijuana zoning case to be issued in the last month. >>read more

A state law that prohibits charter cities from receiving state funds for a public construction project if it allows the contractors to not pay prevailing wage has been upheld by a split appellate court. >>read more

In the second medical marijuana ruling out of the City of Upland in the last week, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that Upland's ban on mobile medical marijuana dispensaries is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. >>read more

Local governments in the Inland Empire won one and lost one in rulings about medical marijuana, both from the same panel of justices on the Fourth District Court of Appeal. >>read more

In the latest chapter of a long-running legal battle over affordable housing and redevelopment in Fontana, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that the city is not required to take on the former redevelopment agency's affordable housing obligations. >>read more

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a trial judge and ruled that the City of Yuma's refusal to approve an upzoning might constitute a disparate racial impact under the federal Fair Housing Act. >>read more

The U.S. Supreme Court decided on Monday not take the appeal in California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose, the case in which the California Supreme Court upheld San Jose's inclusionary housing requirement. But the court was not completely silent. 

In concurring with the decision to pass on the case - a decision that not accompanied by a written opinion by the court -- Justice Clarence Thomas said he believes that the question of whether disproportionate exactions can be imposed on developers in legislative actions - as opposed to quasi-judicial action - is not settled. >>read more

Under Proposition 22, neither the state Board of Equalization nor a county auditor-controller can constitutionally withhold tax funds as part of a redevelopment dispute, as called for by AB 1484, the 2012 bill that cleaned up the redevelopment wind-down, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. >>read more