Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22STCP03357, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP03357    Hearing Date: May 23, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     May 23, 2023                          TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         PROTECT OUR EMERGENCY EVACUATION ROUTES, an unincorporated association, v. CITY OF AGOURA HILLS; AGOURA HILLS CITY COUNCIL; DOES 1 to 10, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 22STCP03357

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL

MOVING PARTY:               Petitioner Protect Our Emergency Evacuation Routes

RESPONDING PARTY:      Respondents City of Agoura Hills and Agoura Hills City Council

SERVICE:                              Filed April 28, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed May 11, 2023

REPLY:                                   Filed May 16, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Petitioner moves to set aside the dismissal of its first and second causes of action.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Petitioner Protect Our Emergency Evacuation Routes’s (“Petitioner”) claim that Respondents City of Agoura Hills and Agoura Hills City Council (“Respondents”) violated the California Environmental Equality Act (“CEQA”) by certifying a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”). Petitioner filed a first amended petition (“FAP”) on September 16, 2022, alleging three causes of action for (1) violation of CEQA, (2) abuse of discretion: findings not supported by substantial evidence, and (3) violation of government code section 65302.15.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Petitioner’s motion to set aside dismissal is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Section 473(b) provides for both discretionary and mandatory relief. [Citation.]” (Pagnini v. Union Bank, N.A. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 298, 302.)  The discretionary relief provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subd. (b) provide in relevant part: “The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” 

Mandatory relief under Coed of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), is not available for dismissals pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.4.  However, discretionary relief for an excusable mistake in ‘unquestionably available’.  (Nacimiento Regional Water Management Advisory Com. v. Monterey County Water Resources Agency (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 961, 967, 968-969.)

DISCUSSION

            On April 10, 2023, this court heard and granted Respondents’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action pursuant Public Resources Code section 21167.4.

Public Resources Code section 21167.4 (“section 21167.4”), subdivision (a) provides: “In any action or proceeding alleging noncompliance with this division, the petitioner shall request a hearing within 90 days from the date of filing the petition or shall be subject to dismissal on the court's own motion or on the motion of any party interested in the action or proceeding.”

             In the previous order, this court found that Petitioner was required to file a request for hearing by December 15, 2022, but did not file the requests for hearing until April 7, 2023.  Counsel states in his declaration that he prepared a request for a hearing of this action and directed his paralegal to format and file it with the Court.  And when the court subsequently served his office with a notice for hearing in January he believed that she had completed the task.   Petitioner concedes that the court’s sua sponte scheduling for the trial setting conference did not excuse his obligation to timely serve a request for a hearing and admits that he did not make any efforts to confirm the notice had in fact been filed.  However, the court finds that these facts constitute ‘excusable neglect, and therefore grants Petitioner the relief he seeks.  The court imposes a penalty of $1000 payable to the court within 30 days pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 473, subdivision (c)(1).

            “The decision of whether to grant relief for the failure to file a timely hearing request implicates two competing public policies—the strong preference for a trial on the merits and the policy favoring expeditious review of CEQA challenges. The preference for trial on the merits is well established.” (Comunidad en Accion v. Los Angeles City Council (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1131.)

CONCLUSION

            Petitioner’s motion to set aside dismissal is GRANTED.

            Moving Party to provide notice.

Dated:   May 22, 2023                                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court