• Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Contact
  • About
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Global
  • Global Litigation
  • U.S. Litigation

Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa

Filing Date: 2007
Case Categories:
  • State Law Claims
    • State Impact Assessment Laws
Principal Laws:
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Description: Challenge to proposed shopping center for failure to address greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa
    Docket number(s): E047624
    Court/Admin Entity: Cal. Ct. App.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    08/25/2011 Opinion Download Opinion issued. An environmental group filed a lawsuit challenging the City of Yucaipa’s approval of a shopping center on land owned by the City. Among other things, the petition alleged that the project failed to properly consider greenhouse gas emissions as required under the California Environmental Quality Act. The trial court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. On appeal, the appellate court dismissed the case on mootness grounds given that the project had been abandoned and the City had rescinded its approval for it.
  • Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa
    Docket number(s): E057589
    Court/Admin Entity: Cal. Ct. App.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    06/08/2015 Opinion Download Opinion issued. Attorney Fees Denied in CEQA Case Involving Abandoned Shopping Center Project. In an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeal affirmed denial of attorney fees to a group that challenged the City of Yucaipa’s approvals for a shopping center. The group had contended that the City failed to fulfill California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) obligations, including by failing to consider greenhouse gas impacts. The trial court dismissed the group’s challenge, and the group’s appeal was dismissed as moot after the shopping center’s developer abandoned the project and the City revoked its approvals. The group argued that it was entitled to attorney fees because its lawsuit was a catalyst for the City’s revocation of the approvals. The Court of Appeal said that evidence indicated the approvals were rescinded because the developer abandoned the project, not because the environmental review violated CEQA. The Court of Appeal also agreed with the trial court that the group was not a prevailing party.

© 2023 · Sabin Center for Climate Change Law · U.S. Litigation Chart made in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

The materials on this website are intended to provide a general summary of the law and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.