THE END OF LOTUS; FIRST DISTRICT HOLDS RES JUDICATA BARS THIRD CEQA LAWSUIT CHALLENGING HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN RICHARDSON GROVE STATE PARK

Posted by   

In Bair v. Department of Transportation (Mar. 26, 2026, A172681) __ Cal.App.5th __ (Bair II), the First District Court of Appeal held that res judicata barred a third lawsuit alleging that Caltrans failed to comply with CEQA before approving highway construction near old-growth redwood trees. Because Bair II challenged Caltrans’s compliance with a writ issued in an earlier lawsuit, the petitioners’ failure to appeal the order discharging the writ barred them from relitigating the issue in the new lawsuit.

Key Takeaway

  • Res judicata may preclude CEQA petitioners from challenging an agency’s compliance with a writ of mandate in a subsequent action.

Background

The case stems from the long-running litigation involving a highway project to modify a one-mile segment of Highway 101 through old-growth redwood trees in Richardson Grove State Park in Humboldt County. Since Caltrans first certified an EIR and approved the project in 2010, the project has been the subject of three CEQA lawsuits.

In the first lawsuit, Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, the appellate court held that the EIR failed to adequately analyze impacts on redwood trees and ordered issuance of a writ of mandate requiring Caltrans to comply with CEQA, consistent with the opinion. In response, Caltrans prepared an addendum with a revised analysis, determined that the project would not result in significant impacts, and, in 2017, recertified the EIR and approved the project.

A second challenge followed. In Bair v. Department of Transportation (Super. Ct. Humboldt County, 2019, No. CV170543) (Bair I), the trial court found a procedural violation—Caltrans had not circulated the addendum for public review—and issued a second writ. Caltrans then circulated the EIR and addendum, responded to public comments, and in 2023 again recertified the EIR and addendum and approved the project for a third time.

After this third approval, Caltrans sought discharge of both the Lotus and Bair I writs. Petitioners opposed and, at the same time, filed a third lawsuit (Bair II), again challenging the adequacy of the addendum’s revised analysis. The trial court granted Caltrans’s motion to discharge the Lotus and Bair I writs, and petitioners did not appeal that ruling.

In Bair II, Caltrans argued that the order discharging the writs conclusively established that the addendum complied with CEQA and barred further challenge under res judicata. The trial court agreed and denied the Bair II petition. Petitioners appealed.

Appellate Decision

The appellate court affirmed. The court explained that the Bair II petition was, in substance, an attempt to relitigate whether Caltrans had complied with the Lotus writ, and that in discharging that writ, the trial court necessarily determined that Caltrans’s revised environmental analysis satisfied CEQA. That determination, once final, could not be revisited in a subsequent action.

In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on Silverado Modjeska Recreation & Park Dist. v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 282, which recognized that a final order resolving compliance with a CEQA writ can have a claim-preclusive effect. As in Silverado, the proper vehicle for challenging the adequacy of an agency’s return to the writ is in the writ proceeding itself—and, if necessary, by appealing the discharge order.

Petitioners argued that the adequacy of the addendum’s analysis of impacts to redwood trees had not actually been decided because the trial court did not review the full administrative record or evaluate the substance of that analysis before discharging the writs. The appellate court rejected this argument, reasoning that it was “just another way of saying the court erred when it discharged the Lotus writ.” In other words, petitioners’ challenge went to the correctness of the discharge order—not whether the issue had been decided. As petitioners did not pursue that argument by appealing the order discharging the writ, the discharge order was final and thus precluded further litigation of the issue.  

Louisa I. Rogers & Nina Berglund