(a)In any action or proceeding alleging noncompliance with this division, the petitioner shall request a hearing within 90 days from the date of filing the petition or shall be subject to dismissal on the court’s own motion or on the motion of any party interested in the action or proceeding.
(b)The petitioner shall serve a notice of the request for a hearing on all parties at the time that the petitioner files the request for a hearing.
(c)Upon the filing of a request by the petitioner for a hearing and upon application by any party, the court shall establish a briefing schedule and a hearing date. In the absence of good cause,
briefing shall be completed within 90 days from the date that the request for a hearing is filed, and the hearing, to the extent feasible, shall be held within 30 days thereafter. Good cause may include, but shall not be limited to, the conduct of discovery, determination of the completeness of the record of proceedings, the complexity of the issues, and the length of the record of proceedings and the timeliness of its production. The parties may stipulate to a briefing schedule or hearing date that differs from the schedule set forth in this subdivision if the stipulation is approved by the court.
(d)This section shall become operative on January 1, 2016.
Notes of Decisions
Friends of Roeding Park v. City of Fresno, 848 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
· cites it 2× “§ 1983 against the City; and fails to state a cognizable claim under CEQA because Plaintiffs failed to request a hearing within 90 days of filing this action as required by California Public Resources Code § 21167.”
Bd. of Supervisors of Riverside Cty. v. Superior Court, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2046 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “) Failure to do so results in a mandatory dismissal of the action. ( Id., § 583.250.) The same time limit/mandatory dismissal coupling has been enacted to cover the failure to bring a civil action to trial or retrial within the specified periods.”
Leavitt v. Cnty. of Madera, 22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 101 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
“The points and authorities stated in its entirety: “Public Resources Code section 21167.4 requires that in a writ of mandate proceeding, petitioners must request a hearing within 90 days of the filing of the petition.”
Miller v. City of Hermosa Beach, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1460 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993).
“Public Resources Code section 21168.9 provides in relevant part: “(a) If a court finds, as a result of a trial, hearing, or remand from an appellate court, that any determination, finding, or decision of a public agency has been made without compliance with this division, the…”
San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 189 Cal. App. 3d 498 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).
“Public Resources Code section 21167.4 provides: “In a writ of mandate proceeding alleging noncompliance with this division, the petitioner shall request a hearing within 90 days of filing the petition or otherwise be subject to dismissal on the court’s own motion or on the…”
Valley Gardens Prop. Investments v. City of Fountain Valley CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Relief Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b) Valley Gardens contends if it failed to timely request a hearing under Public Resources Code section 21167.4, then the trial court erred by not granting it discretionary relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).”
Pub. Watchdogs v. Cal. State Lands Comm'n CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).
“Davis stated that initially he and his paralegal had calendared July 22, 2019, as the last date to file a request for a hearing 2 Public Resources Code section 21167.4, subdivision (a) provides: “In any action or proceeding alleging noncompliance with this division, the…”
White v. California Dep't of Forestry CA1/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023).
“(d)); (2) White failed to timely request a hearing within 90 days of filing her lawsuit as required by Public Resources Code section 21167.4, subdivision (a); and (3) she “fail[ed] to allege any non-speculative facts indicating the manner CEQA” was violated.”
— Cal. Public Resources Code § 21167.4(a) — 1 case
Friends of Roeding Park v. City of Fresno, 848 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
“§ 1983 against the City; and fails to state a cognizable claim under CEQA because Plaintiffs failed to request a hearing within 90 days of filing this action as required by California Public Resources Code § 21167.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.