Association of Irritated Residents v. Department of Conservation
11 Cal. App. 5th 1202
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellants (Association of Irritated Residents, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club) filed a writ petition in Kern County challenging DOGGR’s issuance of 214 drilling permits to Aera Energy without CEQA review; many permits later involved hydraulic fracturing.
- A prior Alameda County suit (filed Oct. 2012) challenged DOGGR’s pattern-and-practice of permitting wells without adequate CEQA review, emphasizing fracking; while that suit alleged a statewide policy it did not challenge individual permits.
- After the Alameda suit was filed, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 4 (effective Jan. 1, 2014), creating a new regulatory framework for well stimulation (definitions, disclosure, required statewide EIR, new permit process, interim permitting rules pronounced in §3161(b)).
- Defendants in the Alameda case moved to dismiss as moot/unripe because SB 4 materially changed DOGGR’s legal duties; the Alameda court dismissed the action on grounds of mootness and ripeness and entered judgment (no appeal taken).
- In Kern County, Aera demurred to the amended petition asserting res judicata based on the Alameda judgment; the trial court sustained that demurrer without leave to amend. Appellants appealed.
- The Court of Appeal concluded the Alameda judgment was based on justiciability (mootness/unripeness) not the merits, so it could not support res judicata; the appellate court reversed and directed the trial court to overrule the res judicata demurrer. The court also denied a motion to dismiss the appeal based on collateral estoppel related to a separate Kern case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Alameda judgment bars the Kern action under res judicata | Alameda dismissal was not on the merits (it was for mootness/unripeness), so it cannot preclude this suit | Alameda judgment was final and preclusive; SB4 rendered prior claims moot and thus judgment should bar subsequent suits | Judgment in Alameda was not on the merits (dismissal for mootness/unripeness); res judicata does not apply; demurrer on that ground must be overruled |
| Whether dismissal for mootness/unripeness constitutes a judgment on the merits for claim preclusion | Plaintiffs: dismissals for mootness/unripeness are procedural/justiciability rulings, not adjudications of substantive rights | Respondent: Alameda court’s discussion of SB4’s effects effectively decided substantive issues | Court: mootness/unripeness are justiciability grounds that typically decline to reach merits; such dismissal is not a merits judgment for res judicata purposes |
| Whether the present and prior actions involve the same cause of action (primary-right analysis) | The Alameda suit challenged a generalized pattern/practice (not individual permits); Kern suit challenges specific 214 permits and site-specific CEQA failures | Respondent: same primary right (public right to environmental review) — thus same cause of action | Court did not decide identity-of-cause issue because it found res judicata failed on the lack-of-merits ground; issue unnecessary to resolve |
| Whether collateral estoppel / motion to dismiss appeal based on a different Kern judgment applies | Appellants: other Kern case (Sierra Club v. DOGGR) involved different facts and parties; no privity for two appellant organizations and no identity of issues | Respondent: final judgment in other Kern case decided the same res judicata issue and should preclude this appeal | Court: collateral estoppel inapplicable — factual differences and lack of privity (and fairness concerns) defeat preclusion; motion to dismiss denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 28 Cal.4th 888 (discussion of res judicata/claim preclusion elements)
- DKN Holdings, LLC v. Faerber, 61 Cal.4th 813 (res judicata requires same cause, same parties/privity, final judgment on merits)
- Johnson v. City of Loma Linda, 24 Cal.4th 61 (judgment on the merits requires substance of claim be tried/determined)
- Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335 (elements and limits of collateral estoppel/issue preclusion)
- Goddard v. Security Title Ins. & Guar. Co., 14 Cal.2d 47 (judgment not rendered on merits does not operate as a bar)
- Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa, 198 Cal.App.4th 939 (remedial approach when judgment becomes moot on appeal)