Concerned Citizens Coalition v. City of Stockton

Good Law
128 Cal. App. 4th 70·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 525·2005 Daily Journal DAR 3947·26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 735·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2956
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 4, 2005C046524California4,545 words

Opinion

Opinion

Robie, J.

Is an order under Code of Civil Procedure section 662 vacating a judgment and reopening the case for further proceedings appealable? We conclude it is not. Accordingly, this appeal (and the related protective cross-appeal) must be dismissed. Further, we decline to exercise our discretion to treat this appeal from a nonappealable order as a petition for an extraordinary writ.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In February 2003, the City of Stockton, acting through its city council, approved a contract with OMI/Thames Water Stockton, Inc. (OMI/Thames) to “privatize” the operation and maintenance of the city’s wastewater, water, and stormwater utilities. The city determined it's approval of the contract was categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and approved a notice of exemption.

In March 2003, plaintiffs commenced this proceeding by filing a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court challenging the city’s approval of the contract.

In October 2003, the trial court ruled the city had abused its discretion in determining the approval of the contract was exempt from CEQA review. The…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.