Shohet, D. M.

English

University of Denver

Water Law Review Volume 8 Issue 1 Article 37 9-1-2004 Haddad v. City Council of Monterey, No. H025805, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4651 (Cal. Ct. App. May 13, 2004) D. M. Shohet Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/wlr Custom Citation D. M. Shohet, Court Report, Haddad v. City Council of Monterey, No. H025805, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4651 (Cal. Ct. App. May 13, 2004), 8 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 271 (2004). This Court Report is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. COURT REPORTSHaddad v. City Council of Monterey, No. H025805, 2004 Cal. App.Unpub. LEXIS 4651 (Cal. Ct. App. May 13, 2004) (holding the citycouncil's decision not to pursue pueblo water rights was neither arbi-trary nor capricious, nor lacking in evidentiary support).Lou Haddad ("Haddad") urged the City of Monterey ("City") tohold hearings to address whether the City should pursue "pueblo waterrights" ("PWR"). At the public hearing, the City Attorney recom-mended the City not pursue costly and time-consuming PWR litigation.The City Council of Monterey ("Council") subsequently voted not topursue PWR. The majority based their vote on the unlikely success,the cost, and the inappropriateness of pitting the City against otherjurisdictions through PWR claims. Haddad filed a writ of mandate inCalifornia State Court claiming the Council abused its discretion. Thetrial court denied the petition. On appeal, Haddad asserted that thetrial court erred in denying his petition because (1) the City had a dutyto pursue PWR; (2) Haddad had a valid declaratory relief action; and(3) Haddad had standing to pursue PWR on his own behalf.The Court of Appeal of California for the Sixth Appellate Districtstated the separation of powers doctrine precluded the court fromcompelling the Council to make a particular legislative action. Thus,the court found it could only review an arbitrary and capricious Coun-cil decision, or a Council policy choice entirely lacking in evidentiarysupport, and could not look into the wisdom or reasonableness of thatCouncil choice. The court found that the Council did not act arbitrar-ily or capriciously, nor did the Council's action entirely lack evidentiarysupport. The court based this determination on the evidence beforethe Council on the likely success and cost of a PWR claim, as well as thepotential for alienating neighbor jurisdictions. The court furtherstated that attacking an administrative order with an action for declara-tory relief was not permissible, and thus dismissed that issue. Thecourt also dismissed Haddad's standing issue to pursue the City's PWRon his own behalf since Haddad's original petition did not raise theissue. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment todeny Haddad's petition.D.M. ShohetProtect Our Water v. County of Stanislaus, No. F042089, 2003 Cal.App. LEXIS 11470 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2003) (holding the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act required a party seeking approval of an"addendum" to a previously certified environmental impact report tocomply with the statutory procedures, including determining whetherthe addendum constituted a substantial change within the meaning ofthe statute).Issue I

Haddad v. City Council of Monterey, No. H025805, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4651 (Cal. Ct. App. May 13, 2004)

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2117&context=wlr

Haddad v. City Council of Monterey, No. H025805, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4651 (Cal. Ct. App. May 13, 2004)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver