Energy and Renewables
- Representing energy companies challenging ordinances adopted by the City and County of Los Angeles, declaring oil operations as a nonconforming use. The City’s ordinance also prohibits the drilling, redrilling, and maintenance of existing wells. The lawsuits include claims that the ordinance is preempted by state law, and that the ordinances interfere with the operator’s vested rights and represent an unconstitutional taking of property without the payment of just compensation. In March 2025, the City of Los Angeles stipulated to a judgment that its original ordinance is preempted by state law, and the County of Los Angeles has proposed to rescind its ordinance in light of changing state law.
- Representing an oil company in challenging to state agency for failing to treat injection project as exempt under CEQA. The Kern County (CA) Superior Court determined in November 2024 that the state abused its discretion in refusing to issue the project approval and not treating the project as exempt. The matter is currently on appeal.
- Representing an energy company in challenging a California statute that singles out the client’s operations for draconian penalties to force the abandonment of low-production wells and then all operations at a particular oil field. A lawsuit has been filed alleging various constitutional and statutory challenges against the State’s implementation of this statute.
- Representing oil companies challenging a de facto moratorium on the issuance of well stimulation permits by the State of California, including claims that the State officials lack statutory authority to adopt a de facto moratorium and that the agency has implemented an underground regulation.
- Represented a renewable energy company against a challenge under CEQA to the approval of a project converting a crude oil refinery in Paramount, CA into a fully renewable fuels production refinery capable of processing 25,000 barrels per day. The case was resolved through a favorable settlement.
- Represented an energy company, royalty owner and trade association in a challenge to a county’s general plan amendment that would severely restrict ongoing oil operations throughout Ventura County, CA. The action also challenges the environmental impact report adopted for the amendment as failing to consider the potentially significant environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the new policies. The parties have reached a favorable settlement.
- Represented seven oil companies (that generated about 90% of the oil production within California) as interveners defending a lawsuit brought by environmental organizations against the state oil and gas agency. The petitioners challenged DOGGR’s regulation of underground injection and sought the immediate prohibition of injection activities for thousands of wells. After a trial on the merits, the court denied the petitioners’ claims for a writ of mandate in their entirety. The case was affirmed in full by the court of appeal, and the Supreme Court denied review.
- Represented a large oil production company, along with impacted business partners and royalty owners, in a challenge to a countywide ballot initiative that would immediately prohibit well stimulation, the drilling of new wells, and would impose a sunset date for the injection or impoundment of produced water. The California Supreme Court held that the initiative was pre-empted by state law, and that local governments cannot contradict a state statute providing that the state agency has authority to determine the appropriate methods of oil production in each suitable case.
- Obtained a pleadings-stage dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the issuance of drilling approvals for five exploratory wells issued in violation of CEQA. The court dismissed the claim without leave to amend in response to our demurrer.
- Represented an oil production company as the real party in interest against a lawsuit challenging the issuance of a renewed conditional use permit, allowing the continued operation or drilling of 36 wells within Ventura County, CA. The trial court denied the claims in their entirety, which was affirmed by the court of appeal. The California Supreme Court denied review.