xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
EBBETTS PASS
PROTECTION
style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>
style='font-size:10.0pt'>
style='font-size:10.0pt'>
style='font-size:10.0pt'>
style='font-size:10.0pt'>
style='font-size:10.0pt'>
style='font-size:10.0pt'>
style='font-size:10.0pt'>
style='font-size:10.0pt'>
style='font-size:10.0pt'>
style='font-size:10.0pt'>
style='font-size:10.0pt'>
style='mso-bookmark:PublicationStatus'>Filed
style='mso-bookmark:PublicationStatus'>
style='mso-bookmark:PublicationStatus'>
style='mso-bookmark:PublicationStatus'>
style='mso-bookmark:PublicationStatus'>
style='mso-bookmark:PublicationStatus'>
style='mso-bookmark:PublicationStatus'>
style='mso-bookmark:PublicationStatus'>
style='mso-bookmark:PublicationStatus'>CERTIFIED
FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
style='width:6.6in;border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
Plaintiffs and v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF style='mso-spacerun:yes'> Defendant and Respondent; SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, Real Party in | F058062 (Super. style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>OPINION |
style='font-size:9.0pt'>STORY CONTINUE style='mso-spacerun:yes'> FROM
PART I….
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'>
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
â€