Dear Solar Glare:

After reviewing the LA Times article that you referred to in your question, we suspect that the plaintiffs in this case would have a number of statutory and common law claims against Mr. Rizzone, the owner of the solar system.

If this case is not settled, and actually goes to litigation, the court would likely first address the applicability of the California Solar Rights Act.  The Act prohibits homeowner associations and local governments from denying permits for or preventing installation of solar panels based on aesthetics. 

The statutory claim may also be based on the 2004 amendments to the Act (discussed in the LA Times Article) "which allows for the relocation of solar panels as long as moving them does not cost more than 20% of the total project or lower its efficiency by 20%." There are many legal questions that the court would have to address in reviewing this case, including whether or not the law allows for "reasonable restrictions" that do not significantly increase the cost of the system, and if this restriction can be applied retroactively. 

The Rizzone's neighbors would probably also claim that the glare from the solar system is a nuisance.  State private nuisance law protects the right of a land owner not to suffer substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of their property. Bright lights, for instance, have been found to be such a nuisance where the lights were not normally a part of the neighborhood. In other words, if you move next to a baseball stadium, your nuisance claim to stop or dim the lights will likely fail. But if your neighbor's outdoor safety light shines directly into your bedroom window at night, you would probably have a very good claim. A number of jurisdictions have even enacted local ordinances specifically regulating "light pollution" (for example, here is San Diego's)  A very cursory look at Newport Beach's online municipal code suggests that Newport Beach does not have such a code.

But maybe the bigger question here is not "what might happen in litigation,"
but rather "how could this type of conflict have been avoided in the first place."

Assuming the Rizzones are still talking to their angry neighbors, but have failed to find a workable solution, the legal questions related to solar panel glare (i.e., nuisance) should be considered along side the non-legal interests and possible alternative options for resolution, such as mediation.  This is an important because when the legal issues are considered along side the non-legal interests of the people involved, the likelihood that litigation or mediation will be used appropriately and effectively increases significantly. 

The reason for this is simple - when the parties and their attorney(s) have thorough understanding of their legal position(s) as well as their non-legal interests - sometimes referred to as their "BATNA" (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) or "WATNA" (Worst Alternative to a Negotiated
Agreement) they are better prepared to make and respond to settlement options that will meet their interests.  In this case, their BATNA may be pursuing resolution through litigation.  However, litigation could be a very expensive "best alternative." 

However, litigation may in fact be the WATNA.  It all depends on the
circumstances and interests of the people involved.   Conversely, the best
(or worst) alternatives to a negotiated agreement are to continue living with the glare from their neighbors solar panels, planting trees, or even selling their home and moving away.  There are many possibilities, but the important thing is that the legal position and non-legal interests are considered along with their respective costs and benefits.

Additional dispute resolution process considerations may include the initial discussions about early (pre-litigation) mediation, mediator selection, and resolution process design. The first issue is determining whether the neighbors with solar panels would be willing to participate in and/or share the cost of mediation. 

Selecting a mediator also is important because different mediators have very different styles, approaches, and ideas about their role as mediator.  These differences in turn may have an impact on the process and the likelihood of success in mediation.  A competent attorney should be able to articulate to his or her clients the pro and cons of mediation, the various mediator styles and approaches to mediation to consider when selecting a mediator, and whether mediation or arbitration (which can be binding or advisory) is even appropriate under the circumstances.  And, if mediation or arbitration are deemed appropriate, your attorney should know when and how they should be used.

So, while the legal theories and the facts of a case are critical to resolving these types of disputes, the parties and their attorney(s) should also take the time to prepare for litigation and/or mediation by objectively and rationally thinking through their legal issues, their non-legal interests, and the possible options for resolving the dispute under the best and worst case scenarios.

If you'd to discuss the issues in more detail, please feel free to be in
touch: questions@cleantechlawpartners.com