Source: https://www.ceqadevelopments.com/2018/01/08/the-past-year-in-ceqa-case-law-a-quick-look-back-at-2017/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 13:42:54+00:00

Document:
The First District issued a primer on pesticide regulation and helpful reminder that CEQA’s substantive requirements fully apply to state agencies operating under a certified regulatory program in Pesticide Action Network North America v. California Department of Pesticide Regulation (2017) 15 Cal.App.4th 478; see 9/25/17 post.
It also affirmed a judgment denying a CEQA challenge to the State Water Resources Control Board’s Revised Substitute Environmental Document for approval of a policy designed to maintain instream flows in certain coastal streams, while holding that the likelihood and severity of indirect project effects may properly be considered by an agency in determining the feasibility of related proposed mitigation measures. Living Rivers Council v. State Water Resources Control Board (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 991; see 10/11/17 post.
Res judicata will not apply to bar a subsequent action on the same claim between the same parties unless the first judgment was on the merits. Association of Irritated Residents v. Department of Conservation (5th Dist. 2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1202; see 6/5/17 post.
Mandatory relief from dismissals and default judgments under CCP § 473(b) based on attorney error does not extend to an adverse judgment entered against a plaintiff that failed to carry its burden of proof at a trial on the merits because its counsel failed to lodge the certified administrative record. The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2d Dist. 2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 933; see 4/18/17 post.
Civil discovery may properly be conducted on the issue of a plaintiff’s standing in a CEQA writ proceeding, and a terminating sanction may properly be issued where the plaintiff attempts to thwart such discovery by refusing to comply with trial court orders. Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (4th Dist. 2017) ____ Cal.App.5th ____; see 12/20/17 post.
The exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine addresses a jurisdictional prerequisite to a CEQA lawsuit, and applies to a lawsuit challenging an agency’s action even absent a public hearing under CEQA, where the action took place under an agendized item at a regularly scheduled public meeting for which the legally required notice – 72 hours posting – was given under the Brown Act. Bridges v. Mt. San Jacinto Community College District (4th Dist. 2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 104; see 8/21/17 post.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 473
 v. 
 v. 
 v.