Hewlett v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp.
Decision Date | 22 April 1997 |
Docket Number | No. C020539,C020539 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2939, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5145 William R. HEWLETT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SQUAW VALLEY SKI CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. |
Remy, Thomas, and Moose, Michael H. Remy, Bradford R. Fenocchio, Placer County District Attorney, Joseph F. Barbara, Placer County Deputy District Attorney, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, Terry J. Houlihan, Stephanie S. Lamarre, John V. Wadsworth and Michael T. Pyle, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, Jeffrey S. Kingston, Thomas M. Peterson and Michael B. Green, San Francisco, for Defendant and Appellant.
In this appeal we are presented with the latest installment in the continuing dispute between defendant Squaw Valley Ski Corporation (Squaw Valley) and objecting parties over the development of ski runs in an area of Squaw Valley's ski resort known as the "Tram Basin Bowl." When litigation threatened The Placer County District Attorney brought a lawsuit for unfair competition asserting Squaw Valley had engaged in unlawful business practices in cutting down these trees. (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200.) A second suit, brought by a private individual, William R. Hewlett, and the Sierra Club, made similar allegations. The district attorney dismissed his suit and joined Hewlett and the Sierra Club as a plaintiff in their lawsuit.
the planned project, Squaw Valley in essence resorted to self-help and cut more than 1,800 trees.
The trial court found defendant Squaw Valley had engaged in unfair competition by committing unlawful business practices by violating provisions of the Zberg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act (Forest Practice Act or FPA) (Pub.Res.Code, § 4511 et seq.), violating provisions of a conditional use permit and violating terms of a temporary restraining order. The court imposed fines totaling $223,000, ordered mandatory and prohibitory injunctive relief, and awarded attorney fees to plaintiffs Hewlett and Sierra Club.
On appeal, Squaw Valley contends it did not engage in ongoing unlawful business practices, and did not violate the Forest Practice Act or the temporary restraining order. It further asserts that violations of a use permit or a temporary restraining order cannot form the basis for a claim of unlawful business practices under the unfair competition statute. Squaw Valley also challenges the remedies imposed and the award of attorney fees.
In a protective cross-appeal, plaintiffs contend the court erred in refusing to permit an amendment to their complaint and in granting Squaw Valley's motion for directed verdict on certain portions of the complaint.
We shall affirm the judgment and dismiss the cross-appeal as moot.
The genesis for this case was described in a previous unpublished decision of this court, Sierra Club v. County of Placer (Apr. 13, 1994) C012901, in which we held that the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the ski run expansion was inadequate. We quote from that opinion:
to 'flagrant[ ] and willful[ ]' violations of conditions imposed to protect the environment, the permit was revoked in September 1976. The parties ultimately settled their differences and Squaw Valley prepared another EIR for the Solitude lift project in 1978.
On July 25, 1988, the Placer County Board of Supervisors approved the EIR, the general plan amendment, the zoning change, and the conditional use permit (CUP-974), and in October 1988, the zoning change ordinance was approved. Squaw Valley was thus authorized to cut the trees necessary to develop the ski runs to be served by the Silverado lift.
Glen Smith, a professional forester who worked for Squaw Valley, spoke with an official from the California Department of Forestry (CDF), who suggested that Squaw Valley might want to sell the felled trees, instead of simply leaving them for employees to use as firewood. Squaw Valley decided selling the timber should remain an option and therefore amended the timber management plan it had previously submitted to delete language stating the timber would be used "for ski area construction or for fuelwood."
In October 1988, Squaw Valley applied for a timberland conversion permit from CDF. This permit is required of "[a]ny person who owns timberlands which are to be devoted to uses other than the growing of timber...." (Pub.Res.Code, § 4621.) In an affidavit filed with this application, James Mott, the president and general manager of Squaw Valley In October 1988, the Sierra Club filed suit to set aside the EIR and the project approvals. The trial court issued an alternative writ of mandate, directing Squaw Valley to show cause why the project approvals should not be set aside. The hearing was initially scheduled for January 31, 1989. Because Squaw Valley had indicated that it did not plan to cut any trees until April 1989, the court did not issue a temporary restraining order. The hearing date on the alternative writ and request for preliminary injunction was extended to March 10 by stipulation of counsel, and subsequently extended again to April 1989.
declared under penalty of perjury that conversion of the land "will commence about ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
...benefit for members of the public or a large class of persons. (Compare, Hewlett v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp . (1997) 54 Cal App 4th 499, at pp. 543, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 118 : sweater.) [The Laffertys] have failed to articulate what significant benefit has been advanced. [The Laffertys’] action sou......
-
County of Amador v. Water Agency
...analysis in an invalid general plan cannot substitute for the analysis required in the instant case. (Hewlett v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 499, 525, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 118.) Perhaps more importantly, the fact that the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors considered mitigatio......
-
Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.
... ... v. General Foods Corp., supra, 35 Cal.3d 197, 197 Cal.Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660 (Children's ... (Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 370, 381, 267 ... an important right affecting the public interest." (See generally Hewlett v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 499, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 118.) ... ...
-
Isuzu Motors Ltd. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc.
...and other unlawful conduct, as well as actions aimed at anticompetitive business practices. See Hewlett v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp., 54 Cal.App.4th 499, 519, 63 Cal. Rptr.2d 118 (3d Dist.1997) (citing Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp., 35 Cal.3d 197, 209-10, 197 ......
-
Business torts and actions
...to develop ski runs constituted a “business practice” subject to the unfair competition statute. Hewlett v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp. , 54 Cal. App. 4th 499, 63 Cal. Rptr. 2d 118 (1997). A garment factory’s imprisonment and enslavement of Thai immigrants was a business practice under §17200. S......
-
California. Practice Text
...v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 72 Cal. App. 4th 861, 880-81 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (quoting Hewlett v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp., 54 Cal. App. 4th 499, 532 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)). See also Saunders v. Superior Court, 27 Cal. App. 4th 832, 839 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (quoting Farmers Ins. Exch. v. ......
-
What insurers and their counsel need to know about California's unfair competition law.
...233 (Cal. App. 1996). (4.) Klein v. Earth Elements Inc., 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 623,625 n.3 (Cal.App. 1997). (5.) Hewlett v. Squaw Ski Corp., 63 Cal. Rptr.2d 118, 137-39 (Cal. App. (6.) Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court (People), 826 P.2d 730, 733 (Cal. 1992). (7.) Klein, 69 Cal.Rptr. 2d at 625,......