Guardians of Elk Creek Old Growth v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection

Opinion

PARRILLI, J.

In mandamus proceedings alleging failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the petitioner is required to request a hearing within 90 days of filing the petition. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.4, subd. (a).)

1

In

Dunn-Edwards Corp. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist.

(1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644 [11 Cal.Rptr.2d 850] (Dunn-Edwards),

2

this court held that after a change of venue, the petitioner is excused from timely requesting a hearing if the trial court fails to give the statutorily required notice that the case has been transferred.

(Dunn-Edwards, supra,

9 Cal.App.4th at p. 652.) Here, a petitioner who did receive notice the case had been transferred contends the 90-day period was tolled under

Dunn-Edwards

during the change of venue process. We reject that claim. A petitioner with notice that transfer of the case is complete must comply with the time limit imposed by section 21167.4.

Petitioner below, Guardians of Elk Creek Old Growth, filed a mandamus petition in Sacramento County on May 3, 1999, to challenge the approval of a timber harvest plan. Real parties in interest Redwood Empire Sawmills and Pacific States Industries, Inc., moved to change venue to Mendocino County. The motion was granted. On May 27, 1999, the Mendocino County Superior Court sent notice that it had received the case file from Sacramento County. On August 3, 1999, the real parties in interest filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to comply with section 21167.4. On August 11, the petitioner filed a request for a hearing, 100 days after the petition was filed in Sacramento County. The trial court dismissed the petition. The petitioner appeals from the dismissal.

The real parties in interest and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection urge us to dismiss the appeal as moot, because timber harvesting under the challenged plan has been completed. We exercise our discretion to entertain the appeal because it is in the public interest to eliminate any confusion over how

Dunn-Edwards