Skip to comments.California Superior Court Dismisses Lawsuit brought by Center for Biological Diversity (wind energy)
Posted on 10/17/2006 7:17:52 AM PDT by Uncledave
Kaye Scholer Announces Watershed Legal Victory for Wind Power Operators in Altamont Pass Monday October 16, 2:06 pm ET
California Superior Court Dismisses Lawsuit brought by Center for Biological Diversity
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Leading law firm Kaye Scholer announced today a significant legal victory in which the California Superior Court for Alameda County ordered a complete dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit (Case No. RG04183113) brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. and its conservation director, Peter Galvin ("CBD"), against the wind power operators in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area ("APWRA").
Kaye Scholer represented the wind power operators, including FPL Group, Inc., FPL Energy, LLC, ESI Bay Area GP, Inc., ESI Bay Area, Inc., GREP Bay Area Holdings, LLC, Green Ridge Power LLC, Altamont Power LLC, enXco, Inc., SeaWest WindPower, Inc., Pacific Winds Inc., WindWorks Inc., and Altamont Winds Inc.
CBD had asserted ten (10) causes of action against the Wind Power Defendants for alleged violations of California's unfair competition law, California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. (the "UCL") and the common law public trust doctrine based on the bird collisions with the wind turbines in the APWRA. In this landmark case interpreting the restrictive standing requirements enacted by Proposition 64 for claims asserted under the UCL, the Court held that CBD was not injured in fact and/or did not lose money or property to have standing to bring a UCL claim. The Court found that CBD's abstract, public trust-based ownership interest in the birds was insufficient to satisfy the lost property standing requirement now applicable under the UCL. Also, the Court found that even though wild birds are referred to at times as part of the "public trust," CBD cannot pursue a public trust doctrine cause of action because such actions must be related to navigable waters and tidelands, which were not implicated in the case. This case was filed on November 1, 2004, the day before Proposition 64 was passed.
Please Freep Mail me if you'd like on/off
I am immediately suspicious of anything that names itself "Center for the..." Isn't this a Nader group's signature ?
What is "common law public trust doctrine"?
I've no idea.
My wild guess is it's some ordinance on how one uses land/resources in a way that impacts the public at large. And that the plaintiff was making a claim that a bird belongs in this "public trust" so if you hurt a bird you're in violation.
But I'm no lawyer.
The Altamonte Windmill operators should counter sue 'cause the birds are striking the blades. Their remains effect the wind flow and reduce the electicity produced which prduces a real,albeit miniscule, loss of income!!!