BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 320
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 320 (Hill)
As Introduced April 12, 2011
Majority vote
NATURAL RESOURCES 6-3 JUDICIARY 6-4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Chesbro, Brownley, |Ayes:|Feuer, Atkins, Dickinson, |
| |Dickinson, Huffman, | |Huffman, Monning, |
| |Monning, Skinner | |Wieckowski |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Knight, Grove, Halderman |Nays:|Wagner, Silva, Huber, |
| | | |Jones |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, | | |
| |Bradford, Charles | | |
| |Calderon, Campos, Davis, | | |
| |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, | | |
| |Mitchell, Solorio | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, | | |
| |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prevents a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
lawsuit from being dismissed for not naming indispensible
parties if the plaintiff names all real parties in interest as
identified in the lead agencies notice of determination (NOD) or
notice of exemption (NOE). Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires state agencies and local governments, when filing an
NOD or NOE, to name the recipient of the agency's approval, if
any.
2)Requires the plaintiff in a CEQA action to name in its
complaint, as a real party in interest, a recipient of an
approval as identified by the public agency in its NOD or NOE.
AB 320
Page 2
3)Establishes that failure to name potential persons, other than
those real parties in interest as identified by the public
agency in its NOD or NOE, is not grounds for dismissal.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a
negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or
environmental impact report for this action, unless the
project is exempt from CEQA.
2)Requires a lead state agency to file an NOD with the Office of
Planning and Research and requires a lead local agency to file
an NOD with the appropriate county clerk(s). A state and
local agency may file an NOE if it determines that a project
is exempt from CEQA.
3)Establishes statute of limitations for an action to challenge
acts or decisions of a public agency on the grounds that they
violate CEQA. In general, the filing of an NOD triggers a 30
day limitations period, the filing of an NOE triggers a 35 day
limitation period, and if there is no notice there is a 180
day limitation period triggered by the commencement of the
project.
4)Requires the plaintiff to name, as a real party in interest,
any recipient of an approval challenged through a CEQA
lawsuit. Failure to name a recipient of approval that is an
indispensible party can be grounds for dismissal. If
dismissal occurs after the statute of limitation expires, the
court will generally not allow leave to amend.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, negligible costs.
COMMENTS : Under CEQA civil procedure laws, if a lawsuit does
not name a recipient of an approval, the court must determine
whether "in equity and good conscience the action should proceed
among the named parties, or should be dismissed without
prejudice, the absent person being thus regarded as
indispensable."
Often when a lawsuit is dismissed for failure to name an
AB 320
Page 3
indispensible party, the plaintiff can cure the deficiency by
amending the complaint to include the absent party. However,
because of the particularly short statute of limitations in CEQA
cases--30 days in many cases--it is unlikely that a plaintiff
will have an opportunity to amend the complaint before the
statute of limitations run.
According to the author's office, CEQA practitioners are now
forced to over-name and serve parties who might or might not be
considered indispensible to ensure no one is missed and that
important cases are not dismissed. This is extremely burdensome
not only to the petitioners, but also to those who have been
named as real parties in interest by the petitioners simply out
of an abundance of caution.
This bill intends to prevent the dismissal of important and
meritorious CEQA cases and the over-naming of parties by
requiring a lead agency to name the recipient of its approval in
its NODs and NOEs. This would allow a plaintiff in a CEQA
action to easily ascertain the real parties in interest so
he/she knows who to name and not name in the lawsuit. This bill
would establish that the plaintiff's failure to name a party,
other than those identified by a lead agency in an NOD or NOE,
is not grounds for dismissal pursuant to the indispensible party
rules. As such, if a lead agency mistakenly omits a name on an
NOD or NOE, it will not be to the detriment of the plaintiff.
Similar bills, SB 68 (Kuehl) in 2008 and AB 499 (Hill) in 2010
were approved by the Legislature but vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger, who objected to giving CEQA plaintiffs "multiple
bites at the apple" and making lead agencies responsible for
determining who the "real parties in interest" are. This bill
is specifically designed to ensure that all necessary parties
are properly named in a lawsuit so a plaintiff will only need
"one bite at the apple" to have his/her case judged on the
merits. Additionally, since lead agencies are the most
appropriate party to determine who is in a receipt of its
approval, it seems reasonable and non-burdensome that they
include this information to the public in the NOD and NOE.
Analysis Prepared by : Mario DeBernardo / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092 FN: 0000519
AB 320
Page 4