Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case concerns the approval of the Giovannioni Logistics Center Project, a large warehouse development in the City of American Canyon, California. The project requires American Canyon to certify an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifically addressing water supply issues since the city relies on outside sources, including water purchased from the neighboring City of Vallejo under a longstanding agreement. Vallejo’s water comes from the State Water Project and its own appropriative water right (License 7848). Vallejo objected to the EIR, asserting that it did not adequately disclose limitations on water availability, including place of use restrictions on License 7848 and ongoing contract litigation between the cities.Vallejo filed a petition for writ of mandate in Napa County Superior Court, later transferred to Sacramento Superior Court, contending that the EIR failed to meet CEQA and Water Code requirements regarding water supply disclosures and contingency planning. The trial court reviewed Vallejo’s arguments, which included claims that the EIR did not account for actual water delivered, failed to assess legal restrictions on water use, neglected the implications of curtailments during drought, and ignored the impact of contract disputes. After argument, the trial court denied Vallejo’s petition and entered judgment for American Canyon and the project developer, Buzz Oates LLC.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. It held that the EIR and water supply assessment complied with CEQA and the Water Code. The court found that the EIR provided sufficient detail about water supply sources and reliability, reasonably addressed foreseeable uncertainties, and did not require more specific disclosures or contingency planning absent evidence of insufficient supply. The court also concluded that any technical omissions were harmless and that Vallejo failed to demonstrate prejudice or a legal deficiency in the environmental review process. View "City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, comprised of several California cities and counties, initiated legal action against Citgo Petroleum Corporation and other fossil fuel companies, alleging that their purchase, distribution, and sale of fossil fuel products in California contributed to climate-related harms within the state. The plaintiffs asserted that Citgo and others participated in extensive business operations involving fossil fuels in California from the 1980s to the mid-2000s. They claimed the defendants knew about the environmental dangers posed by fossil fuels but failed to warn the public, instead allegedly engaging in deceptive marketing and disinformation campaigns to obscure climate-related risks.After identical complaints were filed against all defendants, Citgo moved to quash service of summons, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction. Citgo maintained its activities in California were too limited and lacked sufficient connection to the alleged injuries. The Superior Court of San Francisco granted Citgo’s motion, finding that Citgo’s contacts with California did not satisfy the “relatedness” requirement for specific jurisdiction, as there was insufficient evidence of deceptive conduct directed at California. The court denied similar motions by other defendants, concluding that their broader contacts with California supported jurisdiction.Reviewing the case de novo, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, determined that specific personal jurisdiction over Citgo was proper. The court held that Citgo’s direct involvement in the distribution and sale of branded gasoline in California, without providing warnings about climate risks, sufficiently related to plaintiffs’ claims. The court further found that exercising jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable given California’s significant interest in redressing local climate harms. The order granting Citgo’s motion to quash was reversed, with instructions to deny the motion, allowing the case to proceed against Citgo in California. View "In re Fuel Industry Climate Cases" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on the City’s decision to relocate a piece of playground equipment known as the Sky Track within Arroyo Park, Davis, California, due to noise complaints from nearby residents. After its installation in 2019, the City received complaints about excessive noise, particularly at night, and responded by commissioning noise studies and implementing mitigation measures, such as restricted hours and physical sound dampening. These measures proved challenging to enforce, leading the City to investigate alternative locations within the park. Expert analysis indicated that relocating the Sky Track to a specific area (Location B) would reduce noise levels at the nearest residences compared to its previous location.Following approval by the City Council to move the Sky Track and the filing of a notice of exemption under three categorical exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the plaintiffs challenged the exemption. They filed a verified petition for writ of mandate in the Superior Court of Yolo County, arguing that the unusual circumstances exception to the categorical exemption should apply because of the potential for significant noise impacts. The Superior Court denied the petition, finding substantial evidence that the project fell within the scope of the exemptions and that relocating the equipment would reduce, not increase, noise impacts, thus failing to establish unusual circumstances.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed whether the unusual circumstances exception was triggered. The court held that mere violation of the City’s noise ordinance does not itself amount to substantial evidence of a significant environmental effect. Furthermore, it found no substantial evidence to support a fair argument that relocating the Sky Track would create a significant adverse noise impact. The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, concluding that the City acted within its discretion and complied with CEQA’s exemption procedures. View "Krovoza v. City of Davis" on Justia Law

A community group challenged the adequacy of an environmental impact report (EIR) prepared by the Regents of the University of California for UC Berkeley’s 2021 long range development plan and a specific student housing project at People’s Park. The plaintiffs alleged that the EIR failed to sufficiently analyze certain environmental impacts, including noise from student parties and the consideration of alternative sites for the housing project, in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).The Superior Court of Alameda County denied the group’s petition and entered judgment for the Regents. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal initially agreed with the plaintiffs on two issues: the EIR should have evaluated noise impacts from student parties and considered alternative locations for the housing project. Both parties sought review in the California Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ petition on one issue, it granted the Regents’ petition on the two issues where the plaintiffs had prevailed. During the pendency of the appeal, the Legislature enacted new statutes specifically addressing and abrogating the appellate court’s holdings on noise and site alternatives for residential projects. The California Supreme Court then reversed the appellate court’s decision on those two issues, holding that the legislative changes rendered the EIR adequate and directed judgment in favor of the Regents.After remand, the plaintiffs moved for attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine, arguing they had been a “successful party” by securing important legal precedent. The trial court denied the motion, finding the plaintiffs did not achieve their litigation objectives. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five affirmed, holding that because the Supreme Court reversed the rulings on which the plaintiffs claimed success, those opinions were no longer citable precedent and the plaintiffs did not qualify as a successful party under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. View "Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California" on Justia Law

A nonprofit environmental organization sued a manufacturer of feminine hygiene products, alleging that the company marketed certain products as “organic” or “made with organic ingredients” in violation of California’s organic products law. The complaint claimed that these products, such as period underwear, pads, and panty liners, contained much less than the minimum required percentage of certified organic materials, and included several synthetic or non-organic components not permitted under state and federal organic standards. The organization sought to prevent the manufacturer from advertising and selling these products as organic within California.The Superior Court of Alameda County granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the manufacturer. The court reasoned that California’s organic products law, known as the California Organic Food and Farming Act (COFFA), did not apply to personal care products like the ones at issue, but only to specifically enumerated items such as agricultural products, cosmetics, and pet food. Based on this interpretation, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff’s claims failed as a matter of law and entered judgment for the defendant.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case de novo. It concluded that the statutory text, legislative history, and public policy underlying COFFA support a broad interpretation. The Court held that COFFA applies to all products sold as “organic” or containing “organic” materials within California, including feminine hygiene and personal care products, unless specifically exempted. The Court rejected the argument that such products are categorically excluded and emphasized the statute’s intent to regulate consumer organic claims broadly. The judgment of the trial court was therefore reversed. View "Environmental Democracy Project v. Rael, Inc." on Justia Law

The case concerns a property owner in Sonoma County who, after a fire, conducted timber operations under an emergency waiver of waste discharge requirements. Following observations of waste discharge violations and failure to comply with cleanup orders, the regional water quality control board issued notices of violation and ultimately imposed administrative civil liability, assessing a penalty of $276,000. The property owner did not file a petition with the State Water Resources Control Board within the statutory 30-day period to seek review of the regional board’s order.Subsequently, the property owner filed a writ petition in Sonoma County Superior Court to challenge the civil liability order, and later requested the State Board to review the order on its own motion under Water Code section 13320. The State Board declined to exercise its discretionary review. The property owner amended his writ petition to add the State Board as a party, alleging abuse of discretion in its refusal to review. The State Board and the regional board demurred, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies and that the State Board’s discretionary decision was not subject to judicial review. The Superior Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment for the respondents.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the State Board’s decision not to exercise its discretionary authority to review a regional board order under Water Code section 13320 is not subject to judicial review. The court rejected arguments that this interpretation violated the separation of powers doctrine, concluding that the State Board’s action was not quasi-judicial and did not adjudicate the parties’ rights. The court confirmed that only regional board orders, not the State Board’s discretionary refusals, are eligible for judicial review under the statutory scheme. View "Bareilles v. State Water Resource Control Board" on Justia Law

A California nonprofit organization focused on preventing deceptive environmental claims filed a lawsuit against a manufacturer of feminine hygiene products. The organization alleged that the manufacturer labeled and advertised certain products, including period underwear, pads, and panty liners, as “organic” or “made with organic cotton” in violation of the California Organic Food and Farming Act (COFFA). The complaint stated that these products contained less than the minimum required percentage of certified organic materials and included nonagricultural and nonorganically produced components not permitted under state or federal organic standards.The case was first heard in the Alameda County Superior Court. The manufacturer moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that COFFA applies only to agricultural products, cosmetics, and pet food—not to personal care products such as feminine hygiene items. The Superior Court agreed with the manufacturer and granted judgment on the pleadings, concluding that COFFA did not govern the products in question. The nonprofit timely appealed that decision.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court held that COFFA applies broadly to all products sold as “organic” or containing “organic” materials in California, unless specifically exempted, and that the statute’s plain language encompasses feminine hygiene products. The court found no basis for an implied exception for personal care products and determined that the trial court erred in its interpretation. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment, clarifying that COFFA’s standards and labeling requirements apply to the manufacturer’s products at issue. View "Environmental Democracy Project v. Rael" on Justia Law

Mike Dennis developed mycosis fungoides, a subtype of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, after regularly applying Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide manufactured by Monsanto, for approximately 20 years. Dennis claimed his cancer resulted from exposure to Roundup, which he alleged was sold and marketed without adequate warnings about its carcinogenic risks, despite Monsanto’s knowledge of the potential danger. He brought claims for design defect, failure to warn (under both negligence and strict liability), and negligence. At trial, the jury found that Monsanto was liable for failing to warn about the cancer risk, determining Monsanto knew or should have known of the risk, failed to provide adequate warnings, and acted with malice or oppression. The jury awarded Dennis $7 million in economic damages and $325 million in punitive damages.Following the verdict, Monsanto moved for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The Superior Court of San Diego County denied Monsanto’s requests to overturn the liability findings but reduced the punitive damages award from $325 million to $21 million, finding the original award disproportionate to the compensatory damages. Monsanto timely appealed, arguing that Dennis’s failure to warn claims were preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and that the punitive damages were excessive and unconstitutional.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that FIFRA does not preempt state law failure to warn claims that parallel federal misbranding requirements, in line with United States Supreme Court precedent and California decisions. The court also found that the punitive damages award, as reduced by the trial court, did not violate due process, as it was based on highly reprehensible conduct directly related to Dennis’s harm. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in full. View "Dennis v. Monsanto Co." on Justia Law

The dispute centers on the State Water Resources Control Board’s designation of the Tulare Lake groundwater subbasin as a probationary basin under California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (the Act). The Tulare subbasin is categorized as high-priority and critically overdrafted, requiring coordinated local management and submission of a sustainability plan. Local agencies formed a single groundwater sustainability plan, which the Department of Water Resources twice found inadequate, leading the State Board to designate the subbasin as probationary. Following this, the Board imposed monitoring and reporting requirements with associated fees, prompting farmers and landowners, including Kings County Farm Bureau, to challenge the Board’s actions as exceeding its authority and lacking proper notice.Before reaching the California Court of Appeal, the Superior Court of Kings County reviewed the matter. The trial court had issued a preliminary injunction against the State Board, barring it from enforcing requirements and fees related to the probationary designation. The trial court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on several claims, including improper denial of “good actor” exclusions and failures in notice, and determined the balance of harms weighed in favor of plaintiffs. A nominal bond was set, and the trial court later denied objections to the bond amount.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing an overly broad injunction affecting the entire Tulare subbasin, where only certain areas had plausible claims. The court clarified that the State Board must exclude any basin portion where a local agency demonstrates compliance with sustainability goals, but this exclusion does not require an independently approved plan for every area. The appellate court reversed the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the trial court to consider whether a narrower injunction may be appropriate. The petition for writ of supersedeas was denied as moot. View "Kings County Farm Bureau v. State Water Resources Control Bd." on Justia Law

This case concerns the State Water Resources Control Board's intervention in the Tulare Lake groundwater subbasin pursuant to California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (the Act). After local agencies in the subbasin submitted a groundwater sustainability plan that the Department of Water Resources twice determined to be inadequate, the State Board designated the basin as probationary in April 2024. This designation triggered state-imposed monitoring, reporting, and fee obligations on certain groundwater extractors. In response, the Kings County Farm Bureau and others filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint, asserting that the State Board exceeded its authority and challenging the validity of the designation and associated fees on several grounds.The Superior Court of Kings County addressed both a demurrer filed by the State Board and a request from the Farm Bureau for a preliminary injunction. The trial court dismissed the equal protection claim with leave to amend, but overruled the demurrer as to claims that (1) the State Board used improper “underground regulations” not adopted under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), (2) the imposed extraction fee constituted an unlawful tax, and (3) general declaratory relief was appropriate. The trial court also granted a preliminary injunction, temporarily halting the State Board’s enforcement activities.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the trial court’s order overruling the demurrer. The appellate court held that all actions by the State Board taken under sections 10735.2 and 10735.8 of the Act—including the designation of a probationary basin—are exempt from the APA unless the State Board voluntarily opts to adopt regulations using APA procedures. Therefore, the claim for improper “underground regulations” could not proceed. The court also held that a challenge to the extraction fee as an unlawful tax was barred by the constitutional “pay first” rule, as no exception applied. Lastly, the court determined that declaratory relief was unavailable because the Legislature provided for review of State Board actions exclusively by writ of mandate. The appellate court ordered the trial court to grant the demurrer without leave to amend as to these three claims. View "State Water Resources Control Bd. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law