Monday, February 03, 2014

Reynolds v. City of Calistoga (Cal. Ct. App. - Feb. 3, 2014)

The Court of Appeal gives a pretty good summary of its opinion in the first paragraph:

"Grant Reynolds, proceeding pro se, brought a public trust action challenging operation of a reservoir by the City of Calistoga (City) insofar as that operation affected downstream fisheries (the Public Trust Suit). He then initiated a second action, the matter on appeal here, challenging the City’s use of Napa County sales tax revenue (the Tax Suit). He purported to bring the Tax Suit in the public interest and sought to make the sales tax revenues available for purposes of settling the Public Trust Suit. Reynolds is neither a resident nor a taxpayer of the City or Napa County, and he asserts no other personal interest in the City’s use of the sales tax revenue. The trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend on the ground that Reynolds lacked standing to bring the Tax Suit. We agree that Reynolds lacks standing to pursue this action as a taxpayer, as a citizen suing in the public interest, or as a person suing to protect a public trust. We affirm."

I noticed from the opinion that Mr. Reynolds doesn't live anywhere near Napa County; indeed, he lives just a mile or so (as the crow flies) from my office at the University of San Diego.  From the content of the opinion and the relentless litigation, I assumed that Reynolds was an attorney.

Nope.  Just a regular person.  Though someone with a pretty interesting (and quirky) background.

Regardless, Reynolds loses.  Lawsuit dismissed.