Litigation

Overview

Meyers Nave attorneys have handled hundreds of cases involving challenges to general plan, zoning, development, and annexation approvals brought under CEQA, the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Williamson Act, the Coastal Act, the Endangered Species Act, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and other land use and environmental laws. Many of these cases have involved complex legal issues and have resulted in published Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions.

We vigorously defend our public agency clients against “civil rights” and other lawsuits challenging permit denials and development fee exactions. We also defend our clients against citizen suits brought under various federal environmental laws, including the NEPA and the Clean Water Act. Meyers Nave has an outstanding track record in land use and environmental litigation.

Representative Cases

Representative examples of our firm’s litigation experience are provided below.

Aetna Realty et al. v. City of South San Francisco, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 411816, Court of Appeal, First Appellate District Case No. A105129. Successfully defended the adoption of a General Plan update by South San Francisco against state and federal claims of regulatory takings, equal protection, failure to comply with state planning and zoning laws and failure to comply with CEQA. This matter involved a bifurcated trial with a writ of mandate proceedings followed by a four-week trial. The trial court ruled in favor of the City, and the court of appeal affirmed the judgment.

Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. Of Port Comm’rs, 94 Cal.App.4th 1344. Successfully represented the City in its challenge of the Port of Oakland’s CEQA review of its airport expansion plans. The EIR was invalidated for failure to adequately study health risk impacts, air quality impacts, and impacts to biological resources.

Bombay v. City of Fresno, Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 09 CECG 04022 AMS. Represent the City in a lawsuit filed by multiple developers challenging the City’s system of development impact fees, as well as development impacts fees and water and sewer connection fees for specific developments.

California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. CS01311, Third Appellate District C057018,172 Cal.App.4th 603. Represented the City in a lawsuit challenging approval of a 2,393-unit residential development and commercial project on 530 acres. The lawsuit alleges that the City’s EIR for the project violated CEQA in numerous respects. The lawsuit further alleges General Plan inconsistency claims and violations of the State Planning & Zoning Law.

Las Lomas Land Company v. City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles Superior Court BS115358, 177 Cal. App. 4th 837. Represented the City in a CEQA and land use action challenging the City’s decision to reject a large development project without completing CEQA review. The trial court sustained the City’s demurrer to the developer’s complaint for violation of CEQA and civil rights, and the Court of Appeal affirmed in a published decision. The Supreme Court denied review.

Los Angeles World Airports CEQA Litigation. Assisted in the defense of the approval of the LAX Master Plan against the following consolidated lawsuits alleging violations of CEQA and the California Coastal Act:

  • Alliance for a Regional Solution v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (County of Riverside Superior Court Case No. 426822);

  • City of El Segundo v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (County of Riverside Superior Court Case No. 426822);

  • County of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (County of Riverside Superior Court Case No. 426822);

  • Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (County of Riverside Superior Court Case No. 426822)

Redwood Christian Schools v. County of Alameda, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. C01-4282 SC ADR. Successfully defended the County in a challenge to its denial of a conditional use permit to build a private religious school, under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Schellinger Brothers v City of Sebastopol, Sonoma County Superior Court, Case No. SCV241427 Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, Case No. A122972, 179 Cal.App.4th 1245. Successful defended the City in the trial court against a “reverse CEQA” lawsuit. Developers had claimed that the City’s decision to order further study and recirculation of an EIR violated CEQA. Developers further claimed that the City was required to certify an EIR because the EIR process had lasted for longer than one year.

Vineyard Area Citizens v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412. Represented the City in this CEQA lawsuit. Prior to incorporation of the City, the county approved a community plan for a large, mixed-use development of approximately 20,000 new dwellings on 6,000 rural acres. Among other CEQA and land use issues, the case involves complex issues relating to how environmental impact reports must analyze water supplies for long-range development projects under CEQA.

Westside Association v. City of Healdsburg, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. 02-045680. Successfully defended the City in three consolidated CEQA lawsuits challenging an EIR for proposed improvement to the City’s wastewater treatment facilities and treatment ponds. The lawsuits raised issues regarding piece-mealing, water quality impacts and alternatives.