Deferential Standard/Implied Findings Supported Ruling Below.
The standard of review adopted by an appellate court is frequently one of the most important compasses guiding the ultimate result reached in a case up on appeal. Lynbrook-Monta Vista United v. Fremont Union High School Dist., Case No. H038553 (6th Dist. Mar. 12, 2014) (unpublished) illustrates this aptly in connection with review of a lower court decision denying a partially successful CEQA plaintiff’s request for a fee award under California’s private attorney general statute (CCP § 1021.5).
In this one, a plaintiff nonprofit organization of neighbors near a couple of high schools challenged an EIR which had a transparent error about the noise to be generated from the proposed construction of a new high school football field so teams could play on a “home field.” Later, after a revised EIR was circulated, the District still approved the project through a statement of overriding considerations, a decision having no linkage to the plaintiff’s earlier actions. The lower court denied plaintiff’s fee request on the ground its actions did not convey a significant benefit on a large number of persons.
The appellate court affirmed, mainly based on its conclusion that a deferential standard of review (rather than de novo review) was appropriate with respect to the lower court’s ruling, which was justified under the implied factual finding doctrine (a doctrine giving similar deference to a trial court’s decision). The lower court could readily conclude that there was a transparent error corrected by the District anyway, which still decided to approve the project afterwards.
Transparent Error