David Boyer has more than 20 years of success as litigation counsel for government agencies throughout California. Mr. Boyer has litigated civil actions involving water rights and supply, state water contracts, environmental and natural resources, public construction, public agency, eminent domain and inverse condemnation, land use, insurance coverage, and employment law. He has been successful in representing public and private clients before federal and state regulatory and administrative tribunals on a variety of water and environmental matters. Mr. Boyer has also advised wholesale and retail water agencies on governance issues that involve due process hearings, conflicts of interest, and transparency in government.
Mr. Boyer has significant experience handling claims involving the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne), CEQA, NEPA, Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMPA), CERCLA, RCRA, and the federal and California Endangered Species Acts (ESA & CESA).
David Boyer earned his Bachelor of Science, cum laude from Bowling Green State University, and his Juris Doctor from The University of Alabama School of Law.
Awards and Recognitions
AV® Peer Rating from Martindale-Hubbell
Rated Top Lawyers of 2014 by Martindale-Hubbell
Rated Top Lawyers of Southern California by Los Angeles Times
Listed in Who's Who in American Law
- Brewster v. City of Yorba Linda (OCSC Case No. 00 CC01745): Represented adjacent property owner in CEQA challenge to a redevelopment project and the negative declaration for the project.Elsinore
- Water District v. Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (RCSC Case No. RIC 325436): Represented petitioner in CEQA challenge to EVMWD’s approval of drilling the Joy and Machado Street wells.
- National Environmental Waste Corporation v. City of Riverside (RCSC Case No. RIC 355200): Represented major trash hauler as real party in interest in CEQA challenge to City’s negative declaration concerning its adoption of two waste collection contracts.
CERCLA, RCRA, Hazardous Waste and Site Remediation
- Macklanburg-Duncan v. Alexander (USDC Central District Case No. 93-CV-07723-RAP): Represented potentially responsible party (“PRP”) in Puente Valley Operable Unit of the San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site in cost recovery action under CERCLA against prior property owners.
- Meijer v. Hogg Bros. Transportation, et al. (SBCSC Case No. RVC 25666): Defended one of three major trash haulers in environmental challenge and site remediation consolidated actions concerning the alleged contamination of over 100 acres in San Bernardino County.
- PNL KWP, LLC, v. Waste Recovery & Recycling, Inc. (OCSC Case No. 02 CC05283): Defended one of three commercial waste material recovery facilities (“MRFs”) in action seeking recovery of costs for site remediation of farmland.
- Crossley v. Donahue (OCSC Case No. 02 CC00085): Defended prior property owner in cost recovery action for remediation of tetrachlorothene from soil and groundwater.
Public Finance, Fees and Services
- Crow Winthrop Development Limited Partnership v. Orange County Sanitation District: (OCSC Case No. 00 CC02012): Represented developer in challenge to sewage connection fee assessment in excess of $1 million by county sanitation district.
- City of Corona v. Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County, et al. (RCSC Case No. 339247): Represented City of Corona in action filed against state water contractor, regional wastewater authority, and several municipalities and special districts challenging transfer of capacity rights in regional sewer line valued in excess of $20 million and assessed fees and costs.
- Klajic v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (LASC Case No. BS 058871): Defended Castaic Lake Water Agency in challenge to Agency’s acquisition of the Santa Clarita Water Company and to its ability to provide retail water services within the former service area of the Water Company.
- Plambeck v. Stone & Youngberg (LASC Case No. BC 249168): Defended Castaic Lake Water Agency in “reverse validation” action challenging Agency’s issuance of certificates of participation (“COPs”) of $75 million to refinance its acquisition of the Santa Clarita Water Company.
- In re Bay-Delta Programmatic EIR Coordinated Proceedings (Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings Case No. 4152): Represented Municipal Water District of Orange County (“MWDOC”) in statewide litigation involving environmental challenges of the CalFed Sacramento Bay-Delta Program Action; coordinated and consolidated with challenges brought by the California Farm Bureau Federation and by the Regional Council of Rural Counties.
- Planning and Conservation League v. California Department of Water Resources (SCSC Case No. 95 CS03216): Defended state water contractor as real party in interest in challenge to Monterey Amendment to the SWP water supply contracts and EIR.
- California Water Network v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (VCSC Case No. CIV 215327) and Friends of the Santa Clara River v. California Department of Water Resources (SCSC Case No. 03-CS 00258): Defended Castaic Lake Water Agency in multi-jurisdictional environmental challenges to its 2002 Groundwater Storage Project involving the Semitropic Groundwater Storage Program. Challenges involved causes of action for “reverse validation,” and for violations of CEQA, NEPA, Public Trust Doctrine, and UWMPA.
- Cherry Valley Pass Acres and Neighbors v. City of Beaumont (RCSC Case No. 405984): Defended State Water Contractor in CEQA challenge to its Water Supply Agreement with City of Beaumont for proposed Noble Creek Development.
- Friends of the Santa Clara River v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (LASC Case No. BS 05594) and Planning and Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (LASC Case No. BS 098724): Defended Castaic Lake Water Agency in multiple challenges to its EIR and revised EIR for the Agency’s Supplement Water Project involving the transfer of 41,000 AFY of Kern County Water Agency’s SWP Table A amount. The litigation involved the adjudication of various complicated legal issues, including privity between petitioners in environmental actions, virtual representation, retraxit, res judicata and collateral estoppel, and mandatory tiering under CEQA.
Water and Land Use Planning
- City of Huntington Beach v. Orange County Water District (OCSC Case No. 815921) and City of Fountain Valley v. Orange County Water District (OCSC Case No. 818852): Defended Yorba Linda Water District in environmental action challenging the adoption of master basin plan by Orange County Water District and the annexation of portions of Yorba Linda Water District into Orange County Water District.
- County of Ventura v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (KCSC Case No. CIV 245365-NFT): Defended Castaic Lake Water Agency in consolidated action involving challenges to its 2000 UWMP. First challenge brought under UWMPA and first action to raise issues under SB 221 and SB 610.
- California Water Impact Network v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (LASC Case No. BS 103295): Defended Castaic Lake Water Agency in challenge to its 2005 UWMP. One of the first environmental actions in California raising issues of climate change.
- California Water Impact Network v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (LASC Case No. BS 106546): Defended Castaic Lake Water Agency in CEQA challenge of its 2006 Water Acquisition Project involving the Buena Vista Water Storage District and Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District Water Banking and Recovery Program. Action challenged Agency’s ability to engage in water planning in advance of amendment to applicable general plan.
- Rainbow Municipal Water District v. San Luis Rey Municipal Water District (SDCSC Case No. 37-2007-00056188-CU-WM-NC), Pala Band of Mission Indians v. San Luis Rey Municipal Water District (SDCSC Case No. 37-2007-00056188-CU-WM-NC), Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. San Luis Rey Municipal Water District (SDCSC Case No. 37-2007-00056214-CU-WM-NC): Represented real party in interest developer in multiple CEQA challenges to approval and adoption by SLR MWD of its Modified Master Plan and related environmental documents.
- City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (RCSC Case No. 208568): Represented City of Barstow and Southern California Water Company in action adjudicating water rights for the entire Mojave River Basin.
- Chino Basin Municipal Water District v. City of Chino (SBCSC Case No. RCV 51010): Represented Monte Vista Water District in various post-adjudication issues, including proceedings to replace the watermaster and to impose a water management plan in the Chino Basin.
- Southern California Water Co. v. City of La Verne, et al. (LASC Case No. KC 029152): Represented the City of La Verne in adjudication and physical solution for six groundwater basins in the Pomona, La Verne, Upland and Claremont areas. The parties successfully negotiated a settlement of their water rights dispute involving a physical solution and stipulated judgment.
Eminent Domain and Inverse Condemnation
- Metropolitan Water District of Southern California v. San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (VCSC Case No. CIV 190813) and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California v. Sunwest (VCSC Case No. CIV 190813): Represented MWD in eminent domain actions against various public and private entities holding interest in four large parcels of property located in San Bernardino County needed for MWD’s Inland Feeder Project.
- Groo v. California Department of Transportation (OCSC Case No. 794618): Represented property owners in two-week jury trial against Caltrans, City of Laguna Beach and County of Orange for inverse condemnation, trespass, nuisance and negligent maintenance of dangerous condition resulting from an inadequately designed sewer and drainage system.
- Dynasty Suites v. California Department of Transportation (RCSC Case No. RIC368368): Represented hotel chain in trial involving claims for writ of mandate, inverse condemnation and trespass based upon Caltrans’ failure to construct a sound wall between hotel and Route 91 Freeway.
Commercial and Employment
- Hastie v. American Agri-Corp (USDC Central District Consolidated Case No. 92-CV-02392-DT): Defended corporation and officers in second largest multi-jurisdictional class action ever filed under Section 78m(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act. Two-month jury trial involved adjudication of various complicated legal issues, including determination of the applicable statute of repose, interpretation of various provisions of the 1985 Internal Revenue Code, and application of the Erie Doctrine.
- Lieberman v. Jefferies Technologies, Inc. (LASC Case No. BC 135512): Defended employer in action by employee for breach of express and implied employment contract, physical disability discrimination, retaliatory discharge, violation of the Family Care and Medical Leave Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and slander.
- Chancellor Records v. Damark International, Inc. (USDC Central District Case No. 93-CV-07306): Defended corporation in copyright infringement action by the owners of various popular 1950’s and 1960’s sound recordings.
- Ultimate Data Systems v. Progressive Systems, Inc. (USDC Central District Case No. 94-CV-03135-RG): Defended multivalue developer and systems distributor in copyright infringement action brought by competitor claiming ownership of product source code.
- Mast v. Diamond Coast Federal, Inc. (USDC Central District Case No. 96-CV-06366): Represented director and shareholder of parent corporation in derivative action against parent corporation and subsidiary corporations.
- Lee v. Farm Mutual Water Company (RCSC Case No. RIC 327292): Defended employer in action by employee for termination of employment in violation of public policy (“whistleblower”) and for defamation.
- Chomicz v. ANVA, Inc. (OCSC Case No. 00CC13817): Defended employer in action by employee for termination of employment in violation of public policy, defamation, and violation of Section 201 of the Labor Code.
- Cornerstone Development Group v. Greco (OCSC Case No. 02CC12619): Defended property owner in action seeking specific performance of purchase agreement brought by commercial developer.
- Water Replenishment Dist. of Southern California v. City of Cerritos (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 1063 [135 Cal. Rptr. 3d 895]
- Planning & Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 210 [103 Cal.Rptr.3d 124]
- Friends of the Santa Clara River v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1 [19 Cal.Rptr.3d 625]
- Klajic v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 5 [16 Cal.Rptr.3d 746]
- City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1224 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 294]
- Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (1998) 17 Cal.4th 264 [70 Cal.Rptr.2d 635]
Publications and Speaking Engagements
Mr. Boyer is a contributor to the firm’s publications and Blog.