No. California Recycling Assn. v. County of Solano CA1/3

Filed 1/22/14 No. California Recycling Assn. v. County of Solano CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECYCLING ASSOCIATION, A132844 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Solano County COUNTY OF SOLANO, Super. Court No. FCS033687) Defendant and Appellant; SUSTAINABILITY, PARKS, RECYCLING & WILDLIFE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Solano County COUNTY OF SOLANO et al., Super. Court No. FCS033700) Defendants and Appellants; POTRERO HILLS LANDFILL, INC., et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants. SIERRA CLUB, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF SOLANO et al., (Solano County Defendants and Appellants; Super. Court No. FCS034073) POTRERO HILLS LANDFILL, INC., et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.

This appeal challenges an order awarding attorney fees pursuant to the private attorney general doctrine. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5.) In Sierra Club v. County of Solano (Jul. 31, 2013, A130682, A130734, A130735) [nonpub. opn.] (Sierra Club)), we reversed the judgment on which the attorney fee award was based. The appellants in this

1

appeal filed a motion seeking to summarily reverse the attorney fee award in light of our decision in Sierra Club. We grant the motion. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND As set forth in our opinion in Sierra Club, in 1984 Solano County (county) voters adopted Measure E, which severely restricted the importation of solid waste that originated or was collected outside the county.1 (Sierra Club, supra, A130682 at p. 2.) The county stopped enforcing Measure E in 1992, when county counsel determined the measure was unconstitutional and unenforceable in light of then-recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court. (Sierra Club, supra, at p. 2.) Three petitioners—Sierra Club, Northern California Recycling Association, and Sustainability, Parks, Recycling & Wildlife Legal Defense Fund (SPRAWLDEF)—each filed the actions giving rise to the appeal in Sierra Club. They sought writs of mandate compelling the county to enforce Measure E and ordering the county to vacate approval of a landfill expansion that they claimed was inconsistent with Measure E. (Sierra Club, supra, A130682 at p. 3.) The trial court issued a joint ruling on the merits of all three petitions in Sierra Club. In its joint ruling on the merits, the court directed the county to enforce Measure E as judicially rewritten to apply only to intrastate waste and not to waste generated outside of California. The court denied the request to vacate approval of the landfill expansion. (Sierra Club, supra, A130682 at p. 3.) Following entry of the court’s ruling on the merits, the court granted a motion for attorney fees pursuant to the private attorney general doctrine (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5). In a ruling filed May 31, 2011, the trial court awarded attorney fees to Sierra Club, Northern California Recycling Association, and SPRAWLDEF. Various parties appealed the court’s merits ruling in Sierra Club. (Sierra Club, supra, A130682 at p. 4.) The county, Potrero Hills Landfill, Inc., and Waste Connections