Selected Cases

2002 - 2007.   Four California Environmental Quality Act and Forest Practice Act cases for Ebbets Pass Forest Watch against the California Department of Forestry and Sierra Pacific Industries regarding the cumulative effects of logging on wildlife populations and habitat in the Sierra Nevada range. Case pending in California Supreme Court.

2006.  California Environmental Quality Act case for the California Oak Foundation challenging the County of Tehama’s approval of a housing development proposing to fragment over 2,000 acres of blue oak woodlands. Case pending.

2001-2005.  California Environmental Quality Act case for the Sierra Club, Audubon Society and the California Oak Foundation challenging the County of Placer’s approval of a 2,000-home development that proposed to eliminate old growth blue oak woodlands. Case settled with developers agreeing to fund acquisition and preservation of oak woodlands in Placer County.

2004.  California Environmental Quality Act case for Association of Irritated Residents against the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District challenging the District’s request to EPA to reclassify the District’s ozone pollution non-attainment status from “severe” to “extreme.”

2003.  Unfair Competition and False Advertising case against several major retail grocery chains for false and misleading advertising regarding the pesticide residue content of fresh produce. Case settled with retailers agreeing to change the challenged advertising.

2002.  California Environmental Quality Act and California Pesticide Regulation Act case against the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and Dow Agrosciences, FMC Corporation et al. alleging the Department failed to reevaluate the registrations of pesticides that impact endangered frog species. Adverse ruling, review denied by California Supreme Court.

2001.  Four California Environmental Quality Act and Forest Practice Act cases for Ebbets Pass Forest Watch against the California Department of Forestry and Sierra Pacific Industries regarding the cumulative effects of logging on wildlife populations and habitat in the Sierra Nevada range. Sierra Pacific withdrew all eight challenged timber harvest plans to avoid a ruling on the merits.

2000-2001.  National Environmental Quality Act and National Forest Management Act litigation for Earth Island Institute, Tule River Conservancy, and Forest Conservation Council challenging the U.S. Forest Service’s approval of timber sales affecting California spotted owl and Pacific fisher in eleven Sierra Nevada national forests.

2000-2001.  Forest Practice Act case for California Oak Foundation and Mountain Lion Foundation challenging California Board of Forestry’s exemption of oak woodland logging from regulation under the Forest Practice Act. Adverse ruling, review denied by California Supreme Court.

1999-2000.  California Environmental Quality Act case for the Sierra Club challenging the County of Napa’s failure to subject to CEQA review the conversion of oak woodlands, mixed conifer forests, and chaparral to vineyard cultivation. Case settled with County agreeing to CEQA review.

1998-2000.  California Environmental Quality Act and Forest Practice Act case for the Redwood Coast Watersheds Alliance against the California Department of Forestry and Mendocino Redwood Company. Litigation in Mendocino County Superior Court regarding the cumulative effects of logging on the Albion River, Elk Creek, and Greenwood Creek in Mendocino County, California. Judgment for plaintiffs; writ of mandate issued.

1998-1999.  False advertising/unfair business practice case for California Public Interest Research Group Trust and Environmental Law Foundation against pesticide applicators to enjoin false “green” advertising. Case settled with injunctive relief and corrective advertising.

1995-1997.  Endangered Species Act case for the Environmental Protection Information Center against Pacific Lumber Company and the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Litigation in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Published decisions in the case: Marbled Murrelet v. Babbitt, 83 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 1996); Marbled Murrelet v. Babbitt, 111 F.3d 1447 (9th Cir. 1997).

In this case, Mr. Lippe obtained a preliminary injunction which temporarily prohibited Pacific Lumber from logging in the Headwaters Forest in Humboldt County. Pacific Lumber then agreed to sell (and not to log) the “Headwaters Grove” and one other ancient redwood grove to the federal and state governments, subject to Pacific Lumber receiving an “incidental take” permit under the federal Endangered Species Act and an approved “Sustained Yield Plan” under the California Forest Practice Act.

1996-1999.  Mr. Lippe represented the Sierra Club and the Environmental Protection Information Center in the administrative proceedings related to Pacific Lumber Company’s application for an Incidental Take Permit/Habitat Conservation Plan under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act.

1988-1994.  California Environmental Quality Act case for the Sierra Club and Environmental Protection Information Center against the California Department of Forestry and the Pacific Lumber Company. Litigation in the California Superior Court, First District Court of Appeal, and California Supreme Court. Published decision by the Supreme Court: Sierra Club v. State Board of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, holding that the California Department of Forestry has the authority, under the California Environmental Quality Act and the Forest Practice Act, to require timberland owners to conduct surveys for wildlife species that may be harmed by logging.

1994-1996.  Forest Practice Act case for the Environmental Protection Information Center against the California Department of Forestry. Litigation in the California Superior Court and First District Court of Appeal. Published decision: Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Department of Forestry (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1011, holding that the Board of Forestry’s regulatory exemption of logging on parcels of less than three acres was invalid.

1991-1996.  California Environmental Quality Act and Forest Practice Act cases for the East Bay Municipal Utility District against the California Department of Forestry and Georgia Pacific Corporation. Litigation in the California Superior Court and First District Court of Appeal regarding the cumulative effects of logging in the Mokelumne River watershed in the Sierra Nevada mountains on EBMUD’s reservoirs. Judgment for plantiffs; writ of mandate issued by the Superior Court in the first case. Published decision by the First District Court of Appeal in the second case: East Bay Municipal Utility District v. California Department of Forestry (1994) 43 Cal.App.4th 1113.

1995.  California Environmental Quality Act and Forest Practice Act case for the Lost Coast League against the California Department of Forestry and Pacific Lumber Company. Litigation in the California Superior Court regarding the cumulative effects of logging on the Mattole River in Humboldt County, California. Judgment for plaintiffs; writ of mandate issued.

1990.  Mr. Lippe co-wrote, provided legal services to, and campaigned for Proposition 130, the “Forests Forever” initiative, which appeared on the 1990 ballot in California. The initiative garnered 47.5% of the vote. Mr. Lippe handled litigation concerning the language of the ballot statements for Proposition 130 and a competing initiative sponsored by the timber industry. Mr. Lippe participated in numerous television, radio, and print interviews and talk shows as part of the campaign for Proposition 130 and against the competing initiative.

1991.  Mr. Lippe was one of a team of three negotiators for a coalition of environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Wilderness Society, the Planning and Conservation League, and others, that negotiated with representatives of California’s timber industry to draft compromise legislation to reform forest practices. This effort resulted in proposed legislation known as the “Sierra Accord.” Governor Wilson vetoed the Sierra Accord in the fall of 1991. The state legislature and Governor Wilson then changed the Sierra Accord to accommodate industry objections and renamed it the “Grand Accord.” The Grand Accord was defeated in the legislature in early 1992.

1988.  California Environmental Quality Act and Forest Practice Act case for the Friends of Dougherty Creek against the California Department of Forestry and the Louisiana Pacific Corporation. Litigation in the California Superior Court regarding the cumulative effects of logging on the Big River in Mendocino County, California. Writ of mandate issued.

1987.  California Environmental Quality Act and Forest Practice Act case for the Environmental Protection Information Center against the California Department of Forestry and the Pacific Lumber Company. Litigation in the California Superior Court. This was the first case brought against the California Department of Forestry and Pacific Lumber Company following the purchase of Pacific Lumber by Maxxam Corp. This case involved Maxxam’s plan to log all of its old-growth redwood forests in northern California. In that case, the Humboldt County Court ruled that the Department of Forestry simply “rubber-stamped” Pacific Lumber’s logging plans without legally required review of impacts on old-growth dependent wildlife species. Writ of mandate issued.

1986-1988.  Inverse condemnation case for private landowners against the City of Lafayette for property damage from landslides. Litigation in the California Superior Court. (After Mr. Lippe left the firm handling this case, it reached the California Supreme Court, which published a decision: Locklin v. Lafayette (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 327, in which the Supreme Court announced a new rule governing the duties of landowners regarding the collection and discharge of surface waters into “natural watercourses.”)

1981.  Internship, Environmental Defense Fund. Work included a project evaluating the effectiveness of the California Department of Agriculture’s regulation of agricultural pesticide use.