Fear Not Law Articles: FOREST WATCH v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT of fore. Part-II

xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

EBBETTS PASS FOREST WATCH v
name="country-region"/>
name="date"/>
name="place"/>
name="State"/>
name="PlaceName"/>
name="PlaceType"/>

EBBETTS PASS lace> style='mso-bookmark:PublicationStatus'> style='font-size:14.0pt'>FORESTlace> style='mso-bookmark:PublicationStatus'> style='font-size:14.0pt'> WATCH v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE
PROTECTION>>

style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>> >

style='font-size:10.0pt'>> >

style='mso-bookmark:PublicationStatus'>Filed Month="8" Day="10" Year="2010"> style='font-size:12.0pt'>8/10/10 style='mso-bookmark:PublicationStatus'>>>

style='mso-bookmark:PublicationStatus'>> style='text-decoration:none'> >

style='mso-bookmark:PublicationStatus'>CERTIFIED
FOR PUBLICATION

> >

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF lace>CALIFORNIAlace>

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

> >

style='width:6.6in;border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>

lace>EBBETTS
PASS FORESTlace>
WATCH et al.,

> >

Plaintiffs and
Appellants,

> >

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION,

> >

style='mso-spacerun:yes'> Defendant and Respondent;

> >

SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES,

> >

Real Party in
Interest and Respondent.

> >

F058062

> >

(Super.
lace>Ct.lace> No. CV48910)

> >

style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>OPINION

> >

style='font-size:9.0pt'>STORY CONTINUE style='mso-spacerun:yes'> FROM
PART Iâ€¦.>>

> >

style='letter-spacing:-.05pt'>While the Supreme Court agreed with plaintiffs'
preliminary contentions, the Court rejected the corresponding factual
contentions that the challenged Plans and CDF's
comments were substantively defective.
Instead, the court found that SPI and CDF
had complied with the applicable environmental laws and had adequately assessed
the environmental impacts of potential herbicide use despite their claim that
they need not do so. class=GramE>(Ebbetts style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'> Pass, supra, 43 Cal.4th at pp. 952, 953, 258.) style='mso-spacerun:yes'> Therefore, while the Court may have clarified
the law regarding plaintiffs' legal contentions, the court rejected those
contentions because they lacked support in the record and denied plaintiffs the
relief they requested. To conclude that
plaintiffs were successful under these circumstances would be an unwarranted
expansion of section 1021.5. >>

Because
plaintiffs did not meet the threshold requirement of establishing that they
were a successful party, we need not determine whether they meet the
remaining requirements.

DISPOSITION>>

style='mso-tab-count:1'> The judgment is affirmed. style='mso-spacerun:yes'>

> >

style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>> >

_________________________>>

Ardaiz, P. J.

> >

I CONCUR:

> >

_________________________________

style='mso-tab-count:1'> class=GramE>Levy, J.

style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>DAWSON, J., Dissenting>>

I disagree
with the majority's conclusion that Ebbetts Pass
Forest Watch and lace>Central Sierra
Environmental Resource
Centerlace> (plaintiffs) were not
â€

Description	This case presents the issue of what constitutes a â€
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.