Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton

Good Law
149 Cal. Rptr. 3d 222·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1175·210 Cal. App. 4th 1484
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 13, 2012No. C067164California6,311 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Blease, J.

*1487 Opinion

Plaintiffs Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning, Rosemary Atkinson, Paul Diaz, and Susan Rutherford Rich petitioned for writ of mandate to direct defendants City of Stockton (City) and Stockton City Council to vacate its approval of a Wal-Mart Supercenter in the A.G. Spanos Business Park Development in Stockton. After our Supreme Court issued its decision in Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton (2010) 48 Cal.4th 481, 489 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 858 , 227 P.3d 416 ] (Stockton Citizens), holding that plaintiffs’ California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) cause of action was barred because the suit was not commenced within 35 days after the notice of exemption (NOE) for the project was filed (Pub. Resources Code, § 21167, subd. (d)), the trial court entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of City and real parties in interest Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart), A.G. Spanos Construction, Inc. (Spanos), and Doucet & Associates, Inc. (Doucet), on plaintiffs’ remaining claims on the ground they were time-barred under Government Code 1 section 65009, subdivision (c)(1)(E), because the suit was not commenced within…

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.