Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
21168.9.
(a) If a court finds, as a result of a trial, hearing, or remand from an appellate court, that any determination, finding, or decision of a public agency has been made without compliance with this division, the court shall enter an order that includes one or more of the following:
(1) A mandate that the determination, finding, or decision be voided by the public agency, in whole or in part.
(2) If the court finds that a specific project activity or activities will prejudice the consideration or implementation of particular mitigation measures or alternatives to the project, a mandate that the public agency and any real parties in interest suspend any or all specific project activity or activities, pursuant to the determination, finding, or decision, that could result in an adverse change or alteration to the physical environment, until the public agency has taken any actions that may be necessary to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with this division.
(3) A mandate that the public agency take specific action as may be necessary to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with this division.
(b) Any order pursuant to subdivision (a) shall include only those mandates which are necessary to achieve compliance with this division and only those specific project activities in noncompliance with this division. The order shall be made by the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate specifying what action by the public agency is necessary to comply with this division. However, the order shall be limited to that portion of a determination, finding, or decision or the specific project activity or activities found to be in noncompliance only if a court finds that (1) the portion or specific project activity or activities are severable, (2) severance will not prejudice complete and full compliance with this division, and (3) the court has not found the remainder of the project to be in noncompliance with this division. The trial court shall retain jurisdiction over the public agency’s proceedings by way of a return to the peremptory writ until the court has determined that the public agency has complied with this division.
(c) Nothing in this section authorizes a court to direct any public agency to exercise its discretion in any particular way. Except as expressly provided in this section, nothing in this section is intended to limit the equitable powers of the court.
Resources Code section 21168.9 (section 21168.9), subd. (a)(1). However, as applied here, section 21168.9, subdivision (a)(1), would result in the 2022 Raw Approval, 2022 Addendum, or 2022 Motion being voided, not the initial approval. Similarly, section 21168.9, subdivision (a)(3), does not provide an avenue for Petitioner to pause the entire Project. However, section 21168.9 does provide a possible vehicle for the relief Petitioner seeks in this motion.
LINCOLN HEIGHTS COMMUNITY COALITION VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
22STCP01636
Jan 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Applicable Law Public Resource Code[2] section 21168.9 grants the court wide discretion to fashion a remedy when granting a writ in a CEQA case. Golden Gate Land Holdings v. East Bay Reg’l Park Dist., (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 353, 372.
LYDIA PONCE VS. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL
BS169426
Nov 13, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
After a court issues a peremptory writ of mandate in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21168.9, the trial court retains jurisdiction over the public agency's proceedings by way of a return to the peremptory writ until the court has determined that the public agency has complied with this division. (Pub. Resources Code § 21168.9, subd. (b); Sierra Club v.
JOHN R. LAWSON ROCK VS. CALIFORNIA AIR/CEQA
14CECG01494
Aug 20, 2018
Rosie McGuire
Fresno County, CA
Administrative
Writ
The judgment in this case states that “[t]he Court exercises its equitable discretion under Section 21168.9 to allow, and issues no injunction preventing, the construction of the Project to proceed during the Respondents' performance of actions taken to comply with the writ of mandate.” (Judgment at 3.)
COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT VS. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
N22-1080
Oct 12, 2023
Contra Costa County, CA
(Public Resources Code section 21168.9(b); Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 452, 467.) Assessing obedience with the writ generally requires a review of CEQA requirements, principles, and policies to determine whether there is compliance with CEQA to support discharge of the writ. (see c.f. POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Board (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 52, 86.)
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE GROWTH V. TOWN OF LOOMIS
S-CV-0045539
Aug 04, 2022
Placer County, CA
Jul 15, 2010
Appealed
Norwalk Courthouse
Los Angeles County, CA
Writ - Other Limited Court Case Review (General Jurisdiction)
Feb 13, 2009
Dismissal
Sacramento County
Sacramento County, CA
Writ of Mandate
Jan 07, 2008
Judgment on Appeal
Sacramento County
Sacramento County, CA
Writ of Mandate
Aug 04, 2011
Appealed
Kern County
Kern County, CA
Jul 28, 2005
Dismissal
Santa Clara
Santa Clara County, CA
Writ of Mandate Unlimited (02)
1 MICHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney (SBN 111529) Exempt from Filing Fees JULIE C. RILEY, Interim General Counsel Water (Gov’t Code § 6103) 2 and Power (SBN 197407) MELANIE A. TORY, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 252387) 3 221 N. Figueroa Street, Suite 1000 …
EMT SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Oct-09-2013 02:39 pm Case Number: CPF-05-505509 Filing Date: Oct-09-2013 02:38 pm Filed by: ANNA TORRES Juke Box: 001 Image: 04232565 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES COALITION FOR ADEQUATE REVIEW VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al 001004232565 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. ItBR Bw N le oOo IN Dw 10 WW 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2…
Jul 28, 2005
San Francisco County, CA
Oct 09, 2013
WRITS OF MANDATE OR PROH., CERTI., ETC./ADMIN. AGEN
1 Brian Gaffney (CBN 168778) LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN GAFFNEY APC 2 2370 Market Street, Suite 103-318 San Francisco, CA 94114 3 Tel: (650) 219 3187 brian@gaffneylegal.com 4 Richard Drury (CBN 163559) 5 Rebecca Davis (CBN 271662) LOZEAU | DRURY LLP 6 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland CA 94612 …
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Oct-16-2013 02:13 pm Case Number: CPF-05-505509 Filing Date: Oct-16-2013 02:13 pm Filed by: WESLEY G. RAMIREZ Juke Box: 001 Image: 04239482 REPLY COALITION FOR ADEQUATE REVIEW VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al 001004239482 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.YD WU kW N 10 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 © DENNIS J. HERRERA, S…
Jul 28, 2005
San Francisco County, CA
Oct 16, 2013
WRITS OF MANDATE OR PROH., CERTI., ETC./ADMIN. AGEN
1 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COUNSEL RACHEL VAN MULLEM, County Counsel 2 LINA SOMAIT, Senior Deputy (Bar No. 263876) 105 East Anapamu Street, Suite 201 3 Santa Barbara, California 93101 Telephone (805) 568-2950 / Fax (805) 568-2982 4 E-mail: lsomait@countyofsb.org 5 Attorneys for Respondents and Defendants…
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.