California Appellate Tracker

Atwell v. City of Rohnert Park

November 1, 2018

For res judicata purposes, a person seeking mandate review of a city’s approval of a Walmart store expansion is in privity with an earlier petitioner for similar relief as both sought to represent the public interest.

This mandate petition challenging the city’s 2015 resolutions approving an expansion of a Wal-Mart store on the ground it was inconsistent with the city’s general plan was barred by res judicata. The Sierra Club had brought an earlier suit challenging the city’s 2010 resolutions approving the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the project. The Sierra Club petition raised the same cause of action. While the EIR was revised as a result of the Sierra Club petition, nothing of substance changed with respect to conformity with the general plan. So the 2015 resolutions were not a new wrong and did not give rise to a new cause of action. Also, Atwell, though not a party to the Sierra Club petition, was in privity with the Sierra Club because both represented the public interest and raised issues of harm to the community. Atwell did not allege that the Sierra Club had not adequately represented the public interest in the prior suit.

California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1 (Margulies, J.); September 18, 2018 (partial publication); 27 Cal. App. 5th 692

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

I Agree

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

California Appellate Tracker

Atwell v. City of Rohnert Park

Categories

San Francisco

Severson & Werson

Orange County

Severson & Werson