The Final, Final, Final End.

I reported a few days ago that the PZLDF case, Citizens for Clean Water (or PZLDF) vs. The Regional Water Quality Control Board et al., that flopped for years and was appealed to the next higher court until it finally made it to the State Supreme Court and WAS REJECTED by that court, had few more bits of business completed today: The administrative record was returned to the superior court, a remittitur was issued and finally, after so many years I can't recall where it all began, the case is now COMPLETE, DONE, OVER.

What is a remittitur you ask? (I know I wondered), so I looked it up here:
http://www.capcentral.org/procedures/case_manag/docs/FinalStep-AppellateProcess.pdf

"The remittitur is the final step in the appellate process. If neither rehearing nor review is granted, the Court of Appeal will issue its remittitur about 61 calendar days after the opinion has been filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272.) The issuance of the remittitur signals the end of the appellate court’s jurisdiction. The matter is now properly back before the trial court, which must carry out the higher court’s decision."

So that explains the statement, "Administrative record returned to superior court." But what was the superior court (I know, It has been so long)? It was: 

San Luis Obispo County Superior Court - Main (SLO Court 1)

Trial Court Case Number: CV070472 And what was the higher court, the appellate court's decision? CCW, PZLDF, must pay the court costs of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.  When did this all begin? The earliest pdf I have in my files is dated May 25, 2007.  Looks like a whole lotta court costs to me, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps more. Those poor, poor people who fell for this DOA case. Sad, sad, sad. Addendum: On 1/23/13 the record of the case was returned from the supreme court to the  appellate court. The court language for the containers with the paperwork was listed as, "3 doghouses." Might be what the appellants will be living in once they pay the bills. http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2030576&doc_no=S206739 Doghouse defined: http://socal-appellate.blogspot.com/2011/03/in-doghouse.html To see the timeline of this case at the court of appeals: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1974927&doc_no=

Correcting Incorrect Assertions About PZLDF Case

The RAZOR ONLINE has written an article on the apparent demise of the PZLDF case. But the Razor got some things wrong.

"It’s unclear what the basis of the appeal actually was because the appeal document is not public record."
RAZOR

The appeal document is in the public record, it is just not online. I asked the court in Ventura (where the PZLDF case was heard) as to how to get a copy of that document and the answer was: to come to Ventura and ask to see a copy (no, they will not make a copy for you) or hire a service that does this - which is: they to come to the courthouse with a portable copy machine, request the document and make a copy for you for a price.

"One could speculate that CCW’s attorney Shaunna Sullivan wanted to move the case out of the area in hopes that the appellate judges would be further removed from local politics and biases."
RAZOR

One could, but that isn't how it works:

The vast majority of cases in the California courts begin in one of the 58 superior, or trial, courts — located in each of the state's 58 counties. (Which is the court the case was in before it went to the court of appeals.)

The next level of judicial authority within the state's judicial branch resides with the Courts of Appeal. Most of the cases that come before the Courts of Appeal involve the review of a superior court decision that is being contested by a party to the case. The Legislature has divided the state geographically into six appellate districts, each containing a Court of Appeal.

Source: http://www.courts.ca.gov/2113.htm

"At the tail-end of the opinion, the judge specifically stated that the costs to the respondents (CCRWQCB) shall not be published. "
RAZOR

That isn't what "not publishing" refers to. It refers to the case itself, being published or not published.

"An opinion that is not ordered published shall not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action or proceeding except as provided: when the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or when the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary action or proceeding because it states reasons for a decision affecting the same defendant or respondent in another such action or proceeding. January 1, 1974 Division 3 Rules for Publication of Appellate Opinions Rule 977 Citation of Unpublished Opinions Prohibited; Exceptions (www.nonpublication.com)" (From the California part.)

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/LegalEthics/Nonpublication/Arguments/PublicationRules.htm

You can read more than you would ever want to know about that here:

http://lawweb.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/ilj/assets/docs/14-1%20Wasby.pdf

"There is no question that taxpayers and the district are shouldering the burden of those costs, as shared by the LOCSD."
RAZOR

No, the costs are to be paid by PZLDF or CCW, and the names of those people who are unfortunately on that case are on the superior court document. The District is not involved.