Abbott & Kindermann Land Use Law Blog : California Land Use, Environmental & Real Estate Lawyer & Attorney : Abbott & Kindermann Law Firm : Sacramento, CA

Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update

Reserve your seat for one of three seminars taking place in 2010!

In January and February 2010 Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will present its annual complimentary educational program for clients and colleagues interested in current land use, environmental, and real estate issues affecting commercial and residential development, real estate acquisition, easements, leasing and property acquisition, and mining.  In addition, the following hot topics for 2010 will be discussed:

• Global Warming: CEQA Guidelines, Mandatory Reporting
• Water Supply Legislation
• CEQA Litigation: Alternative Analysis & Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
• Subdivision Map Extension
• Interpreting Development Agreements
• Endangered Species Act

Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will be presenting its annual program at three California locations: Sacramento, Modesto and Redding. Details for the seminars are below. We hope you can join us and look forward to seeing you there.

Modesto Conference

• Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010
• Location: Double Tree Hotel Modesto, 1150 Ninth Street
• Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
• Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Redding Conference 

• Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010
• Location: Hilton Garden Inn Redding , 5050 Bechelli Lane
• Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
• Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Sacramento Conference

• Date: Friday, February 12, 2010
• Location: Sacramento Hilton Arden West, 2200 Harvard Street
• Registration: 8:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. with continental breakfast
• Program: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon

There is no charge for the programs and MCLE and AICP CM credits are available.

An RSVP will be required as space is limited. To reserve a spot, call our office at (916) 456-9595. When calling, please specify which conference you will be attending.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Glen C. Hansen

In County of Sacramento v. Sandison (May 29, 2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 646, the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, held that the limitation on attorneys’ fees awards in Government Code section 25845, subdivision (c), does not apply to awards granted under Civil Code section 1717, and Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032, 1033.5, based on an attorneys’ fees provision in a written contract.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Katherine J. Hart

The Riverwatch, et al. v. County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, et al. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438 case involves the battle over attorney fees awarded to Petitioners by the trial court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, and proves that the courts are continuing the trend in awarding fees even for partially prevailing parties.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Glen Hansen

In Silver Creek, LLC v. Blackrock Realty Advisors, Inc. (May 20, 2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1533, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that the trial court abused its discretion when it decided there was no prevailing party on a contract for purposes of awarding attorney's fees under Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (b), because the record clearly revealed that one party obtained greater relief on the contract in this mixed result case.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Glen C. Hansen

Only in California can you (1) pay taxes to create and support an unconstitutional agency, (2) pay taxes so that the unconstitutional agency defends itself, (3) win a ruling on the unconstitutionality, (4) force a legislative change, and (5) retain the privilege of paying for your own attorneys fees. Who says government is broken? Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

by Elias E. Guzman

In Connerly v. State Personnel Board (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1169, the California Supreme Court recently held that amicus curiae were not liable for private attorney general fees because they were not an "opposing party" under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. This opinion provides significant protection to an amicus curiae from having to pay attorney's fees under the private attorney general statute.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

by Joel Ellinwood, AICP

A recently published case illustrates that there is danger in investing too much in a sense of righteous indignation about the perceived abuse of CEQA in delaying public projects. Ramona Unified School District v. Tsinkas (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 510.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Are "losing" plaintiffs eligible to recover attorney's fees under the private attorney general statute? According to Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 173, a recent decision from the First District Court of Appeal, the answer may be yes. Plaintiffs won their initial due process claim in superior court when the court found that they did not receive a fair hearing during their opposition to a proposed development project. After the City held another hearing and re-approved the project, the superior court denied the rest of plaintiffs' claims and found for the City. This decision was affirmed on appeal in Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, and was discussed in a November 2004 Abbott & Kindermann article.

The superior court subsequently awarded over $18,000 in attorney's fees to the plaintiffs pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. On appeal, the City protested that plaintiffs' "real concerns" were their interests in the project and not the procedural due process claims. The appellate court disagreed and held that attorney's fees are recoverable: 1) by a successful party, 2) in an action that enforces an important public interest right, 3) if a significant benefit has been conferred on the public, and 4) the financial burden makes an award appropriate. Even though the plaintiffs lost in the traditional sense because the project was ultimately approved, the Court of Appeal found that they were a successful party under the statute and ordered the City to pay attorney's fees.

The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Because of the changing nature of this area of the law and the importance of individual facts, readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link