2002 AGN MAY 07 I08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP recover its attorneys' fees from the neighbor under the "Private Attorney General" doctrine because it was advancing the public interest in education. The Court rejected this request because the school was merely trying to advance its own pecuniary interest by defending the physical expansion of the parochial school it owns and operates. In Kaczorowski v. Board of Supervisors for the County ofMendocino (2001) 88 Cal. App. 4th 564, the Court reconfirmed that CEQA lawsuits are subject to dismissal for failure to name an indispensable party. In this case, a resident challenged a private project that had been approved by the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors and had received a permit from the California Coastal Commission. The petition named the Board and the landowners as real parties in interest, but failed to name the Commission. Because the Commission issued a permit for the project after conducting a de novo proceeding, it was an indispensable party. Accordingly, it had to be named as a party to the lawsuit, and the failure to bring a timely suit naming the Commission subjected the case to dismissal. On the other hand, in Deltakeeper v. Oakdale Irrigation District (2001) 94 Cal. App. 4th 1092, the Court reconfirmed that parties are not indispensable when their interests are identical to, and adequately represented by, existing defendants or real parties. The project considered in Deltakeeper was a water transfer agreement through which Oakdale Irrigation District and South San Joaquin Irrigation District agreed to sell water to Stockton East Water District and various other parties. When environmental groups filed a petition challenging the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project, they named only Oakdale, San Joaquin, and Stockton East; the other parties to the agreement were not named. The named defendants then filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to join indispensable parties. The Court rejected the argument that the other parties to the contract were indispensable so that the case could not proceed in their absence. As the named parties included representatives from both the sellers and the buyers, the Court found that the named parties' economic interests in the continued success of the water transfer agreement were such that they could be expected to argue vigorously in favor of the adequacy of the EIR for both themselves and the unnamed parties. Moreover, the named and unnamed parties had entered into an agreement that allowed the unnamed parties to participate in all the litigation decisions made by the named parties, and counsel conceded at oral argument that, under these circumstances, the presence of the named parties would not have made any difference in the defense of the EIR. Consequently, the unnamed parties were not indispensable and the case was not subject to dismissal for failure to include them. - RvpusVc TYW25913 .N q r Yw {ys