Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2005
9 I have read and considered the pleadings and arguments of both sides, and
10 as requested, have taken judicial notice of the Statement of Decision in EPIC -v$- CDF ef
11 a.,Humboldt County Superior Court Case No. CV990445. In deciding a challengeto a
/I
12 complaint by a demurrer, the court may consider all previous pleadings and allegations of
13 the parties. I have also taken a fresh look at the issues presented without being bound by
14 previous lings in the case. A trial judge is permitted to reconsider intermediate rulings
15 prior to final judgment, and an order overruling or sustaining a demurrer is not res
16 judicata. 5 W&in Cal. Proc. Pleadinq, Section 936,and citations. However, except to
17 the extent that this ruling may differ from the reasoning and conclusions of the Honorable
18 Christopher G. Wilson, my judicial predecessor concerning this case, Iaccept and adopt
19 his reasoning and wisdom in his other conclusions.
20
22 BACKGROUND
23
24 The genesis of this case lies in the Headwaters Agreement. As previously
25 noted by this court, PALCO transferred a significant private holding of ancient redwood
26 forest to the State and Federal Governments in exchange for additional property, over 300
27 million dollars and other consideration, including substantialfunds to local government.
28 A key aspect of the considerationfor PALCO was to obtain some degree of predictability
I/ Page 2 of 23
707 445 7041 Superior Court. Humbald 01:08:53 p.m. 06-14-2005
1 in its ability to manage and harvest its resources in light of evolving environmental
2 concerns for timber harvest practices and enhanced polical and public involvement
3
4
1I resulting in substantial collateral costs. To this end, an important aspect of the
Headwaters Agreement for all parties was the development of a Sustained Yield Pian
5 (SYP)IHabitat conservation Plan (HCP) covering the extensive private holdings of
6 PALCO. Predictabilityto PALCO in its use and management of its resources would be
balanced with the pubk's interest in management of those resources in an
mvironmentaliy amptable fashion. Individual Timber Harvest Plans (THPs) would then
rely upon information developed in the SYP process and the THPs would fit within the
framework set forth by the SYP. Development of the SYP is an extensive and costly
multiagency process with primary responsibility lying with the California Department of
I
Forestry (CDF) the state's lead agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning
the federal interest therein. The process requires the SYP be developed and submitted to
the Director of the CDF who then evaluates its sufficiency prior to release for agency and
public review. Comment and response are contemplated ultimately resutting in the
approval of a final SYP by the Director
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS
27
28 As with the original Complaint (OC) and the First Amended Complaint
I/ Page 3 of 23
Superior Court. Humbold 01:10:12~.m. 06-14-2005
(FAC), the essence of PlaintiWs suit, stated in the SAC, remains that Defendants
allegedly committsd fraud by submitting false information in acquiring a Sustained Yield
Plan (SYP), and intentionally concealed that false information from the appropriate
authorities until the Plan was final, resulting in approval of timber harvesting rates
beyond environmentally acceptable levels and without benefR of public scrutiny and
comment.
1 CDF for a greater allowance of annual board feet of timber, and on March 1,1999, CDF
2 adopted a different LTSY, known as SYP Alternative 25, which permitted a greater
3 annual timber harvest.
DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER
15 1 Defendant asserts that the Distdct Attorney cannot atate a cause of action under
/I
16 the UCL, and alleges three areas of alleged deficiencies in the Second Amended
I
17 Complaint:
I
Second: The Second Amended Complaint Violates Safeguards for
Constitutionally Protected Speech (The "Noerr-Pennington Doctrine?
Page 5 of 23
Superior Court. Humbold 01:10:3Qp.m. 06-14-2005
DISCUSSION
ecision made in the process itself. The law favors free cornrnunication in the belief that
dl and fair discussion will lead to the ascertainment of a correct result. See generally:
jilbera -vs- Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205.
1 upon a judgment or used defensively to defeat the finality of a court judgment where the
2 subject defendant was preventedfrom having a fair adversary hearing and has been
3 deprived of an opportunity to present his claim or defense to the court. Extrinsic fraud
4 principally applies where a party has been "denied his day in court" by some wrongful
5 act of another party. It is expressly a narrow equitable doctrine because of the general
6 spirit of the law favoring finality of judgments, and disfavoring an attack on the integrity
7 of evidence after the proceedings have concluded, See: RULING RE DEMURRER TO
8 THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (RULING), pp.17-19.
11 Here we are not dealing with "...a court judgment...", but rather a
12 sustained yield plan (SYP) adopted through an administrative proceeding. Does the
13 extrinsic fraud doctrine used as an attack or defensively against a final judgment in
14 judicial proceedings apply to a SYP adopted through administrative proceedings?
15
16
17 Assuming arguendo that extrinsic fraud might apply to the facts of this
18 case as concluded in the RULING, supra, do the facts set forth in the OC, FAC and SAC
19 warrant Hs application? I conclude that on their face they do not.
20
21
22
24
25
Starting at page 8 of the SAC, Plaintiff sets out a factual summary. The first
23 paragraphs are:
26 1.
27 behalf of PALCO, MAXXAM, INC., The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
28 THE INTERIOR, and THE CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY.
Page 7 of 23
707 4 4 5 704'; Superior Court, Humhold 01 1 1 07 p m 06-14-2005 C
9 111
From the outset, and even included in the "follow-up agreement'' of
lo February 27,1998, as alleged in the OC, is an acknowledgement of the importance of the
/I public's 'mass wasting" landslide concernsSthe gravamen of PIaintiWs action here.
Page 8 of 23
comment period he submitted various studies and reports. Water Quality requestc
Dr. Leslie Reid, a noted scientist concerning sediment source investigation and reduction, to
do a study of Bear Creek watershed. Her reports expressed concerns based on her study
of Bear Creek watershed that she had found excessive landslides and sedimentation
resulting from logging activity. Based on her information and conclusions she contended
that the results would apply across the several watersheds under study. She contended
that logging would have to be significantly limited and widely dispersed to avoid future
problems and to permit restoration of previously logged areas. Her reports were
apparently at significant variance with the repwts of Dr. Weaver, and would in effect lead
to a significant reduction in the amount of logging that could be conducted without
adverse impacts.
The end of the public comment period was coming near. In the OC,
Plaintiff alleged that the dose of the Public Comment Periodfor submission of
information to be filed to become a part of the final EIR was November 18, 1998. In the
FAC and SAC it is alleged that November 18,1998 is two days AFTER the close of such
period. Iwill assume that November 16, 1998 was the closure date, per PlaintiWs
correction.
Plaintiff asserts that near the time for closure of the public comment period, PALCO
conceived of a deceitful plot to mislead the agencies involved, particularly about the
negative impact of Dr. Reid's report. However, 8 is notable that at this late stage of the
proceedings, the chain of events leading to the filing of the allegedly false report, the so-
called "Jordan CreeK report, was NOT initiated by PALCO, but by Water Quality.
Page 9 of 23
707 445 7041 Swerior Court, Humbold 01:l l : 3 3 p m 06-14-2005
1
I At page 18 ofthe OC, Plaintiff alleges that 'On October 8, 1998, Mr. Lee
2 Michlin, Executive Officer of Water Quality, notifid Tom Herman of PL that based on
3
I Table 5 of the Sediment Budgets and Inventory for Bear Creek and NF Elk River, the
4
I/ landslide rate on recently harvested slopes less than 15 years old is 9.6 for Bear and 13.0
5 for Elk when compared to areas hawested greater than 15 years old. Water Quality had
6 found that the 'increase in rate of debris landslides is due to silvicultural activities' which
8
II
7 'indicates a strong connection between the increased timber harvesting and increased
discharge of sediment." This is a very specific averment, as opposed to later allegations
9 in the FAC and SAC that are general to the point of meaninglessness. There is no
10 suggestion or allegation that Mr. Michlin was a tool of PALCO or corruptly involved in
/I
11 some plot to alter the outcome of the process.
14 111 As alleged in the OC p. 19, On November 12, (998, PALGO submitted a responsive
15 letter to Mr. Michlin of Water Quality contending his concerns were not well founded
I/I1
16 and gave as an example a "draft Jordan Creek report" that contained data leading to an
17 opposite conclusion. Again according to the OC, on November 18,1998 ( which as above
11
18 discussed was two days after the last day for filing before closure of the Public Comment
I/
19 Period) PALCO followed up by submitting to the same Mr. Michlin a document dated
20 November 10,1998, containing representations by its independent consultant, Dr. Weaver
21 of PWA, and indicating it was a response to Dr. Leslie Reid's negative comments of
22 PWA's previous studies. This response it refened to as the "draft Jordan Creek report",
23 and it is alleged that it neutralized the findings of Dr. Reid that her Bear Creek study
24 could be generalized across all the watersheds under consideration. Again, these
25 allegations are quite specific, totally unlike the generalized allegations in the FAC and
26 SAC that refer to submissions to "CDF" ( SAC p.4, or "submitted material and
27 significant, false Information regarding Jordan Creek. ..for the purpose of said false
28 information being used to defraud the agencies and the pubiic..."SAC p1O. No mention
/I Page 10 of 23
707 445 7041 Superior Couft, Hurnboid 01:ii:SOp.m. 06-14-2005 11 124
1 is made in the SAC as to which agency of office this material was "submitted".Also, in
2 the SAC Plaintiff alleges that PALCO "...submitted the 'incorrect' Jordan Creek
3 draft to government agents..."(SAC 14).
9 / It is noted that in the OC Plaintiff alleges that the drail Jordan Creek
II11
10 report was "submitted" to Mr. Michlin of Water Quality (OC page 19). In the FAC, it
1I does not refute the submission to Mr. Michlin, but alleges it was "submitted to the
I 2 Ilgovernrnent'' in letter form (FAC p.11). In the SAC. Plaint@alleges Oefendant
/I
13 "...submitted fraudulent and false data to the California Department of Forestry..." It
I/
14 does not say where or with whom SAC p.4. At pages Q and 10 of the SAC Plaintiff
15
I1 alleges that Defendant "submitted" the false report "for the purpose" of defrauding the
16 agencies and the public, but again, it does not state where or with whom such report was
17 filed. At page 14 of the SAC Plaintiff alleges that Defkndant "...submitted the 'incorrect'
18 Jordan Creek drafl to government agents..."
21 Considering the factual averments of the three complaints the following appears
22 likely: Mr, Michlin of Water Quality initiated the subject exchange of information and
23 defendant responded to Mr. Michlin as the responsible officer of Water Quality. It
24 would seem it was Water Quality, not Defendant, that caused the inclusion of the "draft
25 Jordan Creek report" in the final EIR
27
28 But in any event, as Defendant has noted, the submission of the report afler
II Page 11 of 23
1 closure of the Public Comment period made it legally irrelevant, and it wuld have been
2 disregarded by the agencies in charge, had they chosen to do so.
3
4 Plaintiff has claimed that the next stage in Defendant's scheme took place on
5 January 22, 1999, after the final EISIEIR was published. PALCO then allegedly prepared a
6 final truthful report that was more consistent with the report of Dr. Reid. How was it
7 delivered and to whom according to Plaintiff?
10
1I
12
13
14
OC: '...by hand-delivering it to the resource manager of CDF in Fortuna...
( P 21)
I
FAC: "...delivering the corrected report...to local offices of CDF and to the Wate
Quality Control Board ..." (p.12)
Note: It is not alleged what office or officer of Water Quality was the
recipient. Was it the same Mr. Michlii who had been the effective
correspondent for the agencies concerning the subject at hand?
I
1 initiated the exchange.
2
3 In its final allegations, Plaintii asserts Defendant furthered its scheme by failing
4 to notify the recipients of the January 22,1999 report of its significance, making sure
5 they delivered it to Sacramento, failing to call attention to authorities of the draft Jordan
6 Creek report in the final EIRIEIS, lobbying for the Afternatbe 25, rather than 25a
7 harvesting plan based on the Jordan Creek report as included, and alereafter logging in
8
II reliance thereon. However, if the PALCO'S initial communication of the Jordan Creek
I11/
9 Report was immune pursuant to Civil Code Section 47, as Ihave held, these alleged
10 wmmissions by inaction are meaningless.
13 It appears to me that as a matter of fact that we do not have such extrinsic fraud as
14 would bar Defendant from claiming the privilege of Civil Code Section 47. What we do
15 have is a lengthy period of study and reporting from various individuals and agencies,
16 lloften a "dueling experts" game, that was followed by an agency decision. Was the
/I
17 agency decision in some objective sense, right or wrong? That is not the subject of this
18 lawsuit.
19
20
21 The privilege provided by California Civil Code Section 47 provides a m p l e t e
1I
22 defense to Plaintiis action.
Defendant asserts that its submitted Jordan Creek report and subsequent lobbying
E constitutionally protected by the Noerr.
Noen is a constitutionat privilege based upon freedom of speech and the right of
k e n s to petition their government at all levels.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right "to
efiion the Government for a redress of grievances." U.S. Constitution Amendment I,
;lause 6. The Supreme Court has long recognizedthat for the Petition Clause to be a
~eaningfulprotection of the democratic process, citizens must be immune from some
,rms of liability for their efforts to persuade government officials to adopt policy or
erfom their functions in a certain way. This judicially declared privilege based upon
le U.S.Constitution had its origin in the antitrust laws. Kottle v. Northwest (1998) 146
.3d.1056.
U.S. 127, the Court rejctcted antitrust liability stemming from an aggressive lobbying
campaign by a railroad to persuade states to adopt legislation that would severely limit
competition from truckers. The Court explained that "...in a representative democracy
such as this ... the whole concept of representation depends upon the ability of the people
to make their wishes known to their representatives." Id. At 137. The Court then
concluded that the Sherman Act did not apply to the railroads' advocacy of legislative
action, nohnrithstanding their anticompetitive intent Id. At 138.
The Court subsequently expanded the holding of Noerr to include activities aimed
at the executive and judicial branches of government. United Mine Workers v.
PenninFlton (1965) 381 U.S. 657 (executive); and California Motor Transport Co. v.
Truckino Unlimited (1972) 404 U.S. 508 (judicial). The Court explained that "...the right
to petition extends to all departments of the Government..."and therefore, "...the same
philosophy governs the approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies
(which are both creatures of the legislature, and arms of the executive) and to courts,the
lhird branch of Government." California Motor trans^. supra,
In &@e,supra, the Court held that "Given the sweep of the Noerr-Pennington
doctrine, we have no difficulty in joining our sister circuits to conclude that a lobbying
~ffortdesigned to influence a state administrative agency's decision ... is within the
ambit of the doctrine."
Page 15 of 23
I Superior Cowt. Humbold 01:12:54p.m. 06-14-2005 16
Plaintiff has raised a question, and the earlier RULING considered, whether there
is an exception, known as the "sham exception", to Noerr that applies in this case. I think
not.
/I Page 16 of 23
707 445 7041 Superior Couii, Humbold 01:13:06 p.m. 06-14-2005 17&4
l
6 representative sampling and their relationshipto our case:
8
Q 1) HiToo Steel Cow. V. Lehrer (1994) 24 Cai. App. 4m570
10
11
II
Plaintiis stated a cause of action under the sham exception to Noerr because defendants i
that case petitioned the government SOLELY to prevent
12 plaintii from competing with them.
1I
[In the case at hand, no competitors have been implicated, directly or
indirectly,]
[In our case, Palw was directly trying to obtain an advantageous result fmm tl
CEQA process. So far as can be ascertained from the pleadings, Palw had n
been seeking any advantage over a competitor because no competitor wi
involved.]
[There can be little doubt in our case that PALCO was attempting to sew
governmental action in its favor. There is no suggestion that it was trying
frustrate some actual or speculative competitor.]
While not directly mentioned in the pleadings, one must consider the inception
f the CEQA process in this case. The Headwaters Agreement was not some covert, dark .
f night, operation instigated solely by PALCO. It was a well publicized coming together
Fa number of interested parties with a wide divergence of interests in politics, business,
mlogy, flood control, revenue, employment, and other factors. The process was open to one
Page 18 of 23
and all, and the 80,000 page administrative record mentioned in EPlC , supra, attests to
:he extent to which many contributed to the record. This complex and extensive
xoceedings was not some fabrication of PALCO initiated as a "sham" to take advantage of
>them.
There is authority that the "sham exception" is applied more narrowly in judicial
mceedings, and in administrative proceedings where the body is acting in a quasi-
udicial capacity in making findings of fact and where the action is evidenced by a record
hat is subject to review, such as by mandamus. (See generally, i(ottle,supra.) But even
n such instances, the immunity of Noerr applies if the whole thrust of the party's acts is
o obtain a certain governmental action to its direct advantage, rather than the 'sham' of
sing the governmental action to cause disadvantage to others.
Taking the supposed "narrowing" of the sham exception to Noerr a step krrther,
3r purpose of discussion if one were to assume the "sham" might apply during the fact
Page 19 of 23
Superior Couii. Humbold 01:13:44 p m . 06-14-2005
inding or open public portion of the CEQA process, and I do not, Plaintiff still cannot
)revail.
After the close of the public period on November 16, 1998, the agencies
nnsidered the amassed material and on February 25, 1999, CDF issued findings for the
SYP adopting a Long-Term Sustained Yield (LTSY) projection known as SYP
Uternat'ie 25(a). Plaintiff has not in any of its pleadings asserted that 25(a) was not
Ifair determination, warranted by the record. In other words, PALCO'S supposed deceit
lad gained it naught.
After November 16, 1998 (closure of public input), and before February 25,
999 (findings by CDF), that is: during the 'lobbying phase", the context changed from
l e that might be arguably more adjudicatory in nature (to which the "sham exception"
Page 20 of 23
Supsrlor Court. Hwnbold 01:13:56p.m. 06.14-2005
might apply) to one that was more openly political (to which the "sham exception"
clearly does not apply.).
As defendant points out in its Demurrer pp.14-16, the allegedly false report and
the so called corrected repoit were both filed after the November 16, 1998 cut off date
and CDF was therefore under no obligation to consider elher of them. The adoption by
SDF of SYP 25(a) [the restrictive plan] on February 25,1000, suggests that CDF was
uell able to evaluate the mass of the record and make an independent conclusion tnat
favored the lower harvesting limit. This occurred well after PALCO'S submission of either
report. It was only later, after PALCO had availed itself of its constitutionally permitted
obbying activlty that CDF reconsidered and adopted the less restrictive SYP Plan 25.
Page 21 of 23
Superlor Court. Humbold 01:14:OBpm. 06-14-2005
Plaintiff alleges that CDF was deprived of the effect of the "corrected" or 'true"
report, but if that was the case, Plaintiff fails to explain how CDF arrived at the initial
SYP Plan 25(a) that of necessity reflected such information calling for a reduced scale of
logging, more consistent with the "corrected" report.
While the Demurrer provides further reasons for its granting under this heading,
Ibelieve we need go no further.
Based on the facts shown by the several complaints, it does not appear that
Plaintiff can state a sustainable cause of sction, even with any likely amendment.
Therefore, the Demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.
Defendant at page 17 of its Demurrer and Motion to Strike requests the Court to
strike the District Attorney's Multiple UCL claims. This is moot in light of the sustaining
3f the Demurrer without leave to amend. Nevertheless. I shall address it.
California's Unfair Competition Law can be employed where there are any of
:hree varieties of unfair competition, including acts or business practices that are
'unlawful" or "unfair" or "fraudulent". Podolskv-vs- First Healthcare Corn. (1996) 50
2al. ~pp.4' 632. The UCL statute is also not confined to anticompetitive business
xactices, but is also directed toward the public's right to protection from such conduct.
3ut the statute is directed at ongoing wrongful conduct. The "practii" requirement
tnvisions something more than a single transaction. It contemplates a pattern of conduct,
~ngoingconduct, a pattern of behavior, or a course of conduct. Hewlett a s - SPuaw
Page 22 of 23
2
I
1 Vallev Ski Cow. (1997) 54 Cal.~pp.4'"499.
3
4 In the present case, it appears !hat the alleged wrongful conduct is the advancing
5
I of the "draft Jordan Creek report". That is a single act in my estimation, assuming
I7 I
6 Plainti could meet its burden at trial of showing its wrongfulness. It is noteworthy that
I according to the pleadings, PALCO had submitted other reports fmm Dr. Weaver to
ll
8 which Plaintiff takes no exception. Itherefore find that PALCO's "practice" was to
9 Ilsubmit reports that Plaintiff does not contend are wrongful, and that it is only in this
11
10 single instance that ~ t a i n t iobjects.
i The attempt to allege other wrongdoing by alleging
Il
11 a scaries of contrived omissions is a stretch to get around that requirement of w,
I/
12 supra, for multiple wrongful acts to constitute a practice. The "practice" in question is
/I
13 the submission of reports in the CEQA process.
l
11
In the end, even if the action of PALCO was subject to the UCL, it nevertheless
17 has a complete statutory defense with California Civil Code Section 47 and a defense
18 under the free speech and petition provisions of the First Amendment to the U.S.
19 Constitution as developed in the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine.
22 Defendant is allowed its costs of suit. Defendant's counsel shall serve and
23 submit a suitable form of judgment.
I Page 23 of 23
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT ) SS. APFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
. EDGAR B. WASHBURN
MORRISON & FORRESTER
..
TJk
J : i
JOHN A. BEHNKE
CARTER BEHNKE OGLESBY & BACIK
P 0 BOX 720
UKIAH, CA 95482
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on-#'/h-et day of-, 2005, at the City of ~ u r e k a ,County of Humboldt,
State of California.
DWIGHT W. CLARK,Clerk of the Court