California Legal Brief

The Rule of The Chemical Toxin Working Group Inc. v. Best Naturals, Inc. is that Proposition 65 pre-suit notice requirements under California Code of Regulations, title 27, section 25903 are satisfied by substantial compliance rather than strict compliance, under circumstances where the notice serves the regulation's underlying purposes of allowing investigation, cure, and settlement of alleged violations.

The Rule of The Chemical Toxin Working Group is that Proposition 65's 60-day pre-suit notice substantially complies with regulatory requirements when it provides the name and contact information of the noticing entity's outside counsel rather than a responsible individual within the noticing entity, under circumstances where the notice otherwise identifies the alleged violation with sufficient specificity to enable prosecuting agencies to assess the claim and allow violators to cure violations.

The Rule of Raptors Are the Solution v. CropLife America is that trade associations that intervene in litigation to protect their members' direct pecuniary interests in government registration decisions are "opposing parties" liable for private attorney general fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, under circumstances where the intervenors actively participate in defending challenged government approvals that directly affect their members' economic interests.

The Rule of People ex rel. Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District v. Spencer Defty is that a cross-complaint challenging the validity of an internal agency policy does not arise from protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute when the regulatory enforcement actions are merely evidence of the policy's application rather than the basis for liability, under circumstances where the cross-complaint seeks declaratory relief that the policy was adopted without proper rulemaking procedures.

The Rule of Shear Development Co. v. California Coastal Commission is that courts must exercise independent judgment in determining an agency's appellate jurisdiction when that jurisdiction depends primarily on interpretation of enacted law rather than factual matters, and where two agencies offer conflicting interpretations of a law both administer, no deference is due to either when the Yamaha factors do not clearly favor one interpretation, under circumstances where jurisdictional disputes turn on legal interpretation of local coastal programs and multiple agencies share administrative responsibility.

The Rule of Shear Development Co. v. California Coastal Commission is that courts must exercise independent judgment when reviewing an agency's jurisdictional determinations based on legal interpretation of enacted law, and when two agencies offer conflicting interpretations of law they both administer, neither receives deference if Yamaha factors do not clearly favor one over the other, under circumstances where the jurisdictional question depends primarily on statutory or LCP interpretation rather than factual disputes.

The Rule of Bair v. California Department of Transportation is that res judicata bars relitigation of a CEQA environmental analysis's substantive adequacy when the trial court has discharged a writ of mandate directing preparation of that analysis, under circumstances where petitioners challenged the agency's compliance with the writ in multiple simultaneous proceedings but failed to appeal the writ discharge order.

The Rule of Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition v. Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 is that in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication, trial courts may allocate water rights directly to overlying landowners rather than to mutual water companies when the companies act as agents/trustees exercising rights on behalf of shareholders and the landowners retain their underlying overlying water rights, under circumstances where substantial evidence shows the landowners never severed their water rights through written transfer and the companies do not assert exclusive rights against their shareholders.

The Rule of Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles v. Department of Toxic Substances Control is that attorney fees cannot be awarded under the catalyst theory where a party has received a final adverse judgment on the merits before the defendant voluntarily provides the relief originally sought, under circumstances where the voluntary action occurs after the lawsuit has been fully litigated to a final judgment against the fee-seeking party.

The Rule of Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. v. Pancho Villa's, Inc. is that Proposition 65's pre-suit notice requirements are given directory effect and substantial compliance is the governing test, under circumstances where technical deviations from specific notice requirements do not undermine the core purposes of enabling prosecuting agencies to assess potential enforcement actions, allowing violators to cure violations, and defining the scope of the private party's right to sue.

The Rule of Department of Water Resources v. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is that a state agency's definition of a proposed program must be sufficiently definite to ascertain whether it qualifies as a statutory "modification" of an existing authorized project rather than a new unit requiring separate legislative approval, under circumstances where the agency seeks to validate revenue bonds based on broad definitional language that fails to establish clear boundaries or purposes for the proposed facilities.

The Rule of Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission is that a public utilities commission's quasi-legislative decision developing a successor net energy metering tariff pursuant to statutory directive receives narrow judicial review and will be upheld if it lies within the lawmaking authority delegated by the Legislature and is reasonably necessary to implement the statutory purpose, under circumstances where the Legislature has explicitly directed the commission to develop a tariff meeting specified objectives while providing discretion to revise the tariff as appropriate.

The Rule of Department of Water Resources Cases is that Water Code section 250 and 11580 project authorization and funding requirements do not apply to precondemnation entry and testing activities under Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.010, under circumstances where a public entity with eminent domain authority seeks temporary access to conduct investigations to determine property suitability for future condemnation.