The Second District Court of Appeal has issued a decision in Comunidad en Accion v. Los Angeles City Council (case no. B240554 (Sept. 20, 2013), finding that the petitioner’s failure to timely request a hearing under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) was excusable neglect.  The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling dismissing the petitioner’s suit on this basis.[1]

Comunidad en Accion challenged the City of Los Angeles’ approval of new and expanded solid waste facilities at the Bradley Landfill in Sun Valley, where the real party in interest, Waste Management, proposed building a new solid waste transfer station and expanded recycling and green waste processing facilities. Comunidad failed to comply with Public Resources Code section 21167.4 by filing a request for a hearing within 90 days of filing the lawsuit, however, and Waste Management filed a motion to dismiss on this basis shortly after the 90-day deadline ran. 

The trial court granted the motion to dismiss Comunidad’s CEQA claims and denied its request for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, which permits relief from dismissal due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.  Comunidad’s attorney averred that he had inadvertently omitted the 90-day hearing request from his personal calendaring system and that this mistake was compounded when he was out of state for two weeks prior to the deadline due to family illness.  The trial court distinguished case precedent that found a calendaring error warranted discretionary relief under section 473, concluding that calendar shortcomings in the age of electronic litigation calendars, was not excusable neglect. 

Upon review, the Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Comunidad relief.

[1] In addition to the CEQA claims, Comunidad challenged the siting of the waste facilities under state antidiscrimination laws.  On this issue, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the City.Continue Reading Second District Court of Appeal finds Failure to Request a CEQA Hearing within 90 Days is Excusable Neglect

On Friday, September 20, 2013, just days after indicating his support for the bill, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 4, which establishes a permitting system for the fracking of new oil and gas wells. The Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) is now officially tasked with developing the permitting program…

This week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, ruling on the constitutionality of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS).  The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s holdings in large part, in particular finding that the LCFS does not on its face violate the…

Just hours after the California Assembly voted to pass the remaining bill on hydraulic fracturing, SB 4, the California Senate voted to concur with the Assembly amendments. The next stop for the bill is the Governor’s desk. Governor Brown’s administration had previously indicated concern regarding the broad scope of the bill, which was amended in the Assembly to include other well stimulation activities including acid treatment. If the Governor vetos the bill, it can be overriden by a two-thirds vote in both houses, which is a strong possibility given the breakdown of the votes cast to pass the bill.
Continue Reading California Legislature Passes Fracking Bill

Today the California Assembly passed the controversial bill regulating hydraulic fracturing, SB 4. The bill has been criticized by both industry groups and environmental organizations. Industry has argued that the bill is overbroad for including other types of well stimulation techniques, including acid well treatments, and creating a permitting scheme that subjects each decision to stimulate a new well to the California Environmental Quality Act. On the other end of the spectrum, the Center for Biological Diversity claims that only a moratorium on fracking would adequately protect the public and the environment.
Continue Reading California Assembly Passes Fracking Bill

Last week, a judge in Alameda County Superior Court denied the Center for Biological Diversity’s motion for summary judgment in a case arguing that DOGGR is obligated to regulate hydraulic fracturing activities under the state’s underground injection control (UIC) program. The Center challenged DOGGR’s position that the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempts fracking from the state UIC program under the Safe Drinking Water Act (see January 25, 2013, post). The judge sided with DOGGR, finding that the exemption of fracking activities from state UIC regulations was consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act and DOGGR’s interpretation should be afforded great weight unless clearly erroneous.
Continue Reading Judge Upholds DOGGR’s Application of UIC Fracking Exemption

At the end of last week, the Assembly Committee on Appropriations advanced the remaining bill regarding hydraulic fracturing, SB 4, to the Assembly Floor. After delaying the first scheduled vote on the bill, Appropriations advanced the bill without amendment. Since advancing to the floor, SB 4 has been amended to require the development of a reporting website and groundwater modeling criteria.
Continue Reading Assembly Committee Advances Fracking Bill to the Floor

Authored by Carissa Beecham

In Friends of Oroville, et al. v. City of Oroville, et al. (“Friends of Oroville”) (filed and published in part on August 19, 2013), the Third District Court of Appeal partially reversed the trial court in finding that the City of Oroville’s (“City”) EIR improperly analyzed the greenhouse…

The Assembly Committee on Appropriations failed to reach a decision at yesterday’s hearing on SB 4 – the lone surviving bill relating to hydraulic fracturing in the California Legislature. Appropriations delayed a vote on the newly amended SB 4 for another two weeks after hearing extensive testimony on the bill. At the hearing, representatives on both sides of the issue rejected the bill. Industry representatives argued that the bill is too broad for regulating acid injection in addition to fracking. Meanwhile, environmental groups asserted that the bill is too lenient on fracking fluid disclosure requirements.
Continue Reading Still No Agreement on Remaining Fracking Bill

Last week, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to address hydraulic fracturing on federal lands in central California. BLM indicated that the EIS would consider the potential impacts of fracking and other well stimulation techniques associated with oil and gas leases and may result in an amendment to the resource management plan (RMP) for the Hollister Field Office.
Continue Reading BLM Announces an Environmental Assessment to Address Fracking in California

About Stoel Rives Environmental Law

Learn More

Few firms view their Environment, Land Use, and Natural Resources practices as core legal services. Stoel Rives is one of them. The firm ranks #8 in the United States according to Law360’s list of the largest practices of its kind. Our sophisticated compliance counseling, permitting, regulatory development, and litigation practices continue a long tradition of specialization and deep experience. Our environment, land use, and natural resource attorneys incorporate prior agency experience, technical acumen, and industry knowledge into their legal advice. They also build strong relationships with agency officials and industry associations. Our litigation successes include landmark decisions. More than 60 attorneys, paralegals, and compliance analysts comprise Stoel Rives’ nationwide Environment, Land Use & Natural Resources practice.