| Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company's land is subject to water contracts of which $11,452,000 is expected to be paid in 2022. These estimated water contract payments consist of SWP, contracts with Wheeler Ridge Maricopa Water Storage District, TCWD, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, Dudley-Ridge Water Storage District and the Nickel water contract. The SWP contracts run through 2035 and the Nickel water contract runs through 2044, with an option to extend an additional 35 years. As discussed in Note 6 (Long-Term Water Assets), the Company purchased the assignment of a contract to purchase water in late 2013. The assigned water contract is with Nickel and obligates the Company to purchase 6,693 acre-feet of water annually through the term of the contract. The Company's contractual obligation for future water payments was $285,566,000 as of December 31, 2021 . As of December 31, 2021, the Company has fulfilled its financial obligations to the Tejon Ranch Conservancy as prescribed in the Conservation Agreement that was entered into with five major environmental organizations in 2008. The Company exited a consulting contract during the second quarter of 2014 related to the Grapevine Development and is obligated to pay an earned incentive fee at the time of successful receipt of litigated project entitlements and at a value measurement date five years after litigated entitlements have been achieved for Grapevine. The final amount of the incentive fees will not be finalized until the future payment dates. The Company believes that net savings from exiting the contract over this future time period will more than offset the incentive payment costs. The Tejon Ranch Public Facilities Financing Authority, or TRPFFA, is a joint powers authority formed by Kern County and TCWD to finance public infrastructure within the Company’s Kern County developments. For the development of TRCC, TRPFFA has created two Community Facilities Districts, or CFDs: the West CFD and the East CFD. The West CFD has placed liens on 420 acres of the Company’s land to secure payment of special taxes related to $28,620,000 of bond debt sold by TRPFFA for TRCC-West. The East CFD has placed liens on 1,931 acres of the Company’s land to secure payments of special taxes related to $75,965,000 of bond debt sold by TRPFFA for TRCC-East. At TRCC-West, the West CFD has no additional bond debt approved for issuance. At TRCC-East, the East CFD has approximately $44,035,000 of additional bond debt authorized by TRPFFA that can be sold in the future. In connection with the sale of bonds, there is a standby letter of credit for $4,393,000 related to the issuance of East CFD bonds. The standby letter of credit is in place to provide additional credit enhancement and cover approximately two years' worth of interest on the outstanding bonds. This letter of credit will not be drawn upon unless the Company, as the largest landowner in the CFD, fails to make its property tax payments. The Company believes that the letter of credit will never be drawn upon. The letter of credit is for two years and will be renewed in two-year intervals as necessary. The annual cost related to the letter of credit is approximately $68,000. The Company is obligated, as a landowner in each CFD, to pay its share of the special taxes assessed each year. The secured lands include both the TRCC-West and TRCC-East developments. Proceeds from the sale of West CFD bonds went to reimburse the Company for public infrastructure costs related to the TRCC-West development. At December 31, 2021 there were no additional improvement funds remaining from West CFD bonds. There are $15,647,940 of additional improvement funds remaining within the East CFD bonds for reimbursement of public infrastructure costs during future years. During 2021, the Company paid approximately $2,860,000 in special taxes. As development continues to occur at TRCC, new owners of land and new lease tenants, through triple net leases, will bear an increasing portion of the assessed special tax. This amount could change in the future based on the amount of bonds outstanding and the amount of taxes paid by others. The assessment of each individual property sold or leased is not determinable at this time because it is based on the current tax rate and the assessed value of the property at the time of sale or on its assessed value at the time it is leased to a third-party. Accordingly, the Company is not required to recognize an obligation at December 31, 2021. Tehachapi Uplands Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Approval In July 2014, the Company received a copy of a Notice of Intent to Sue, dated July 17, 2014, indicating that the Center for Biological Diversity, or CBD, the Wishtoyo Foundation and Dee Dominguez (collectively the TUMSHCP Plaintiffs) intended to initiate a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or USFWS, challenging USFWS's approval of the Company's Tehachapi Uplands Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, or TUMSHCP, and USFWS's issuance of an Incidental Take Permit, or ITP, for the take of federally listed species. The TUMSHCP approval and ITP issuance by the USFWS occurred in 2013. These approvals authorize, among other things, the removal of California condor habitat associated with the Company's potential future development of MV. On April 25, 2019, the TUMSHCP Plaintiffs filed suit against the USFWS in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles (Case No. 2:19-CV-3322) (the TUMSHCP Suit). The Company was not initially named as a party in the TUMSHCP Suit and brought a motion to intervene, which the court granted. The TUMSHCP Suit seeks to invalidate the TUMSHCP as it pertains to the protection of the California condor (an endangered species), as well as the ITP. The primary allegations in the TUMSHCP Suit are that California condors or their habitat are “Traditional Cultural Properties” within the meaning of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), that the USFWS failed to take into account the impact of the TUMSHCP and ITP on these “Traditional Cultural Properties” and failed to adequately consult with affected Native American tribes or their representatives with respect to these “Traditional Cultural Properties.” Management considers the allegations in the TUMSHCP Suit to be beyond the scope of the law and regulations referenced in the TUMSHCP Suit and believes that the issues raised by the TUMSHCP Plaintiffs were adequately addressed by USFWS during the consultation process with Native American tribes. The Company has supported USFWS's efforts to vigorously defend this matter during this litigation. In a December 18, 2019 ruling, the court ordered that the parties proceed to bring motions for summary judgment on the question of whether the USFWS correctly determined that the California condor is not a “Traditional Cultural Property” under the NHPA. In response to this order, both the TUMSHCP Plaintiffs and the USFWS and the Company filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On December 4, 2020, the court issued an order denying, in its entirety, the TUMSHCP Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and granted, in their entirety, USFWS and the Company’s motions for summary judgment. On December 18, 2020, the Company brought a motion to recover attorneys’ fees and costs, as the prevailing party, against the TUMSHCP Plaintiffs. On February 2, 2021, the court denied the fee motion. Following the court’s ruling on the fee motion, on February 2, 2021, Plaintiffs notified the court of their intent to appeal the court’s ruling on their claims. On April 2, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a revised briefing schedule that required opening and responsory briefs to be filed in May and June 2021. On September 16, 2021, the Plaintiffs and the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Tejon Ranchcorp and Tejon Mountain Village, LLC, as Intervenor-Defendant, entered into a settlement agreement wherein the Plaintiff’s agreed to dismiss their appeal with prejudice in exchange for the Service agreeing no assert among other positions in any future judicial or administrative proceeding or rulemaking petition that Plaintiff’s dismissal constitutes an acknowledgement, admission or concession that an animal is not Traditional Cultural Property under the National Historic Preservation Act. On October 4, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued an order dismissing the appeal. With the issuance of the order, the appeal is permanently dismissed and the TUMSHCP Suit cannot be relitigated and the permit issued to the Company stays in effect. National Cement The Company leases land to National Cement Company of California Inc., or National, for the purpose of manufacturing Portland cement from limestone deposits on the leased acreage. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, or RWQCB, for the Lahontan Region issued orders in the late 1990s with respect to environmental conditions on the property currently leased to National. The Company's former tenant Lafarge Corporation, or Lafarge, and current tenant National, continue to remediate these environmental conditions consistent with the RWQCB orders. The Company is not aware of any failure by Lafarge or National to comply with directives of the RWQCB. Under current and prior leases, National and Lafarge are obligated to indemnify the Company for costs and liabilities arising out of their use of the leased premises. The remediation of environmental conditions is included within the scope of the National or Lafarge indemnity obligations. If the Company were required to remediate the environmental conditions at its own cost, it is unlikely that the amount of any such expenditure by the Company would be material and there is no reasonable likelihood of continuing risk from this matter. Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases On November 29, 2004, a conglomerate of public water suppliers filed a cross-complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court against landowners and others with interest in the groundwater basin within the Antelope Valley (including the Company) seeking a judicial determination of the rights to groundwater within the Antelope Valley basin, including the groundwater underlying the Company’s land near the Centennial project. Four phases of a multi-phase trial have been completed. Upon completion of the third phase, the court ruled that the groundwater basin was in overdraft and established a current total sustainable yield. The fourth phase of trial occurred in the first half of 2013 and resulted in confirmation of each party’s groundwater pumping for 2011 and 2012. The fifth phase of the trial commenced in February 2014 and concerned 1) whether the United States has a federal reserved water right to basin groundwater, and 2) the rights to return flows from imported water. The court heard evidence on the federal reserved right but continued the trial on the return flow issues while most of the parties to the adjudication discussed a settlement, including rights to return flows. In February 2015, more than 140 parties representing more than 99% of the current water use within the adjudication boundary agreed to a settlement. On March 4, 2015, the settling parties, including the Company, submitted a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Physical Solution to the court for approval. On December 23, 2015, the court entered judgment approving the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Physical Solution, or the Judgment. The Company’s water supply plan for the Centennial project anticipated reliance on, among other sources, a certain quantity of groundwater underlying the Company’s lands in the Antelope Valley. The Company’s allocation in the Judgment is consistent with that amount. Prior to the Judgment becoming final, on February 19 and 22, 2016, several parties, including the Willis Class (Willis), Phelan Pinon Hills Community Services District (Phelan), and Charles Tapia (Tapia) filed notices of appeal from the Judgment (collectively, the Phelan Appeal). The Phelan Appeal was transferred from the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District of California to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District of California, or the Fifth District Court of Appeal. On December 9, 2020, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the Judgment as to the Phelan Appeal, and the decision is now final. On March 16, 2021, the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued two decisions affirming the Judgment as to both Willis and Tapia. The Tapia decision is now final. The Willis Class filed a Petition for Rehearing which was denied on April 6, 2021. On May 14, 2021, the Willis Class filed a petition for review to the California Supreme Court which was denied on July 21, 2021. The Willis decision is now final. Following the resolution of these challenges, the Judgement is now final. The parties, with assistance from the court, have established the Watermaster Board, hired the Watermaster Engineer and Watermaster Legal Counsel, and begun administering the physical solution consistent with the Judgment. Summary and Status of Kern Water Bank Lawsuits On June 3, 2010, the Central Delta and South Delta Water Agencies and several environmental groups, including CBD, collectively, the Central Delta Petitioners, filed a complaint in the Sacramento County Superior Court, or the Central Delta Action, against the California Department of Water Resources, or DWR, Kern County Water Agency, or KCWA, and a number of “real parties in interest,” including the Company and TCWD. The lawsuit challenges certain amendments to the SWP contracts that were originally approved in 1995, known as the Monterey Amendments. The Central Delta Petitioners sought to invalidate the DWR’s approval of the Monterey Amendments and also the 2010 environmental impact report, or 2010 EIR, regarding the Monterey Amendments prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, pertaining to the Kern Water Bank, or KWB. Pursuant to the Monterey Amendments, DWR transferred approximately 20,000 acres in Kern County owned by DWR, or KWB property, to the KCWA. A separate but parallel lawsuit, or Central Delta II, was also filed by the Central Delta Petitioners in Kern County Superior Court on July 2, 2010, against KCWA, also naming the Company and TCWD as real parties in interest. Central Delta II challenged the validity of the transfer of the KWB property from the KCWA to the Kern Water Bank Authority, or KWBA. The petitioners in this case alleged that (i) the transfer of the KWB property by KCWA to the KWBA was an unconstitutional gift of public funds, and (ii) the consideration for the transfer of the KWB property to the KWBA was unconscionable and illusory. This case has been stayed pending the outcome of the Central Delta Action. In addition, another lawsuit was filed in Kern County Superior Court on June 3, 2010, by two districts adjacent to the KWB, namely Rosedale Rio Bravo and Buena Vista Water Storage Districts (collectively, the Rosedale Petitioners), asserting that the 2010 EIR did not adequately evaluate potential impacts arising from operations of the KWB, or Rosedale Action, but this lawsuit did not name the Company: it only named TCWD. TCWD has a contract right for water stored in the KWB and rights to recharge and withdraw water. This lawsuit was later moved to the Sacramento County Superior Court. In the Central Delta Action and Rosedale Action, the trial courts concluded that the 2010 EIR for the Monterey Amendments was insufficient with regard to the EIR's evaluation of the potential impacts of the operation of the KWB, particularly on groundwater and water quality, and ruled that DWR was required to prepare a remedial EIR (which is further described below). In the Central Delta Action, the trial court also concluded that the challenges to DWR’s 1995 approval of the Monterey Amendments were barred by statutes of limitations and laches. The Central Delta Petitioners appealed the Sacramento County Superior Court Judgment, and certain real parties filed a cross-appeal. No party appealed the Kern County Superior Court Judgment in the Rosedale Action. On November 24, 2014, the Sacramento County Superior Court in the Central Delta Action issued a writ of mandate, or 2014 Writ, that required DWR to prepare a revised EIR (described herein as the 2016 EIR because it was certified in 2016) regarding the Monterey Amendments evaluating the potential operational impacts of the KWB. The 2014 Writ, as revised by the court, required DWR to certify the 2016 EIR and file the response to the 2014 Writ by September 28, 2016. On September 20, 2016, the Director of DWR (a) certified the 2016 EIR prepared by DWR as in compliance with CEQA, (b) adopted findings, a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation, monitoring and reporting program as required by CEQA, (c) made a new finding pertaining to carrying out the Monterey Amendments through continued use and operation of the KWB by the KWBA, and (d) caused a notice of determination to be filed with the Office of Planning and Resources of the State of California on September 22, 2016. On September 28, 2016, DWR filed with the Sacramento County Superior Court its return to the 2014 Writ in the Central Delta Action. On October 21, 2016, the Central Delta Petitioners and a new party, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) (collectively, the CFS Petitioners), filed a new lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court, (the CFS Action), against DWR and naming a number of real parties in interest, including KWBA and TCWD (but not including the Company). The CFS Action challenges DWR’s (i) certification of the 2016 EIR, (ii) compliance with the 2014 Writ and CEQA, and (iii) finding concerning the continued use and operation of the KWB by KWBA. On October 2, 2017, the Sacramento County Superior Court issued a ruling that the court shall deny the CFS petition and shall discharge the 2014 Writ. The CFS Petitioners appealed the Sacramento County Superior Court judgment denying the CFS petition. The Third Appellate District of the Court of Appeal granted DWR’s motion to consolidate the CFS Action appeal for hearing with the pending appeals in the Central Delta Action. On July 19, 2021 the Court of Appeal heard oral argument on the appeals in the Central Delta Action and the CFS Action. On September 22, 2021 the Court of Appeal issued its opinion unanimously affirming the judgments of the Superior Court in the Central Delta Action and in the CFS Action, including the Superior Court ruling that the Central Delta Petitioners’ challenges to the 1995 approval of the Monterey Amendments and the transfer of the KWB property were time-barred by statutes of limitations. The Central Delta Petitioners and the CFS Petitioners filed Petitions for Review of the Opinion of the Court of Appeal with the California Supreme Court. On January 5, 2022 the California Supreme Court denied the Petitions for Review. On January 13, 2022 the Central Delta Petitioners filed the Request for Dismissal with prejudice. The entry of the dismissal in Central Delta II by the Superior Court has concluded all of the above actions. Grapevine On December 6, 2016, the Kern County Board of Supervisors unanimously granted entitlement approval for the Grapevine project. On January 5, 2017, the CBD and CFS, filed an action in Kern County Superior Court pursuant to CEQA against Kern County and the Kern County Board of Supervisors, or collectively, the County, concerning the County’s granting of the 2016 approvals for the Grapevine project, including certification of the final EIR (the 2017 Action). The Company was named as a real party in interest in the 2017 Action. The 2017 Action alleged that the County failed to properly follow the procedures and requirements of CEQA, including failure to identify, analyze and mitigate impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, traffic, water supply and hydrology, growth inducing impacts, failure to adequately consider project alternatives and to provide support for the County’s findings and statement of overriding considerations in adopting the EIR and failure to adequately describe the environmental setting and project description. Petitioners sought to invalidate the County’s approval of the project and the environmental approvals and require the Company and the County to revise the environmental documentation. On July 27, 2018, the court held a hearing on the petitioners’ claims in the 2017 Action. At that hearing, the court rejected all of petitioners’ claims raised in the litigation, except petitioners’ claims that (i) the project description was inadequate and (ii) such inadequacy resulted in aspects of certain environmental impacts being improperly analyzed. As to the claims described in “(i)” and “(ii)” in the foregoing sentence, the court determined that the EIR was inadequate. In that regard, the court determined the Grapevine project description contained in the EIR allowed development to occur in the time and manner determined by the real parties in interest and, as a consequence, such development flexibility could result in the project’s internal capture rate, or ICR, of the percent of vehicle trips remaining within the project actually being lower than the projected ICR levels used in the EIR and that lower ICR levels warranted supplemental traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public health and growth inducing impact analyses. On December 11, 2018, the court in the 2017 Action ruled that portions of the EIR required corrections and supplemental environmental analysis and ordered that the County rescind the Grapevine project approvals until such supplemental environmental analysis was completed. The court issued a final judgment consistent with its ruling on February 15, 2019 and, on March 12, 2019, the County rescinded the Grapevine project approvals. Following the County’s rescission of the Grapevine project approvals, the Company filed new applications to re-entitle the Grapevine project (the re-entitlement). The re-entitlement application involved processing project approvals that were substantively similar to the Grapevine project that was unanimously approved by the Kern County Board of Supervisors in December 2016. As part of the re-entitlement, supplemental environmental analysis was prepared to address the court’s ruling in the 2017 Action. Following a public comment and review period, the Kern County Planning Commission held a hearing on November 14, 2019 and unanimously recommended to the Kern County Board of Supervisors that it approve the re-entitlement of the Grapevine project. On December 10, 2019, the Kern County Board of Supervisors held a hearing and after considering the supplemental environmental analysis and material presented at the hearing unanimously voted to approve the re-entitlement of the Grapevine project. On January 9, 2020, the County filed a Supplemental and Final Return to Preemptory Writ of Mandate to inform the court of the re-entitlement in a manner that the County and the Company believed was compliant with the court’s February 15, 2019 final judgment in the 2017 Action. Concurrently, the County and the Company filed a Motion for Order Discharging Writ of Mandate, which requested that the court determine that the re-entitlement complied with the court’s February 15, 2019 final judgment in the 2017 Action (the Motion for Order to Discharge 2017 Writ of Mandate). A hearing was held on February 14, 2020 for this motion and is further summarized below. On January 10, 2020, CBD filed a new and separate action in Kern County Superior Court pursuant to CEQA against the County, concerning the County’s approval of the December 2019 re-entitlement, including certification of the final EIR (the 2020 Action). The Company was named as real party in interest in the 2020 Action. The 2020 Action alleged that the County failed to properly follow the procedures and requirements of CEQA with respect to the re-entitlement of the Grapevine project, including failure to identify, analyze and mitigate impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, public health, and traffic, and failed to provide support for the County’s findings and statement of overriding considerations in adopting the EIR. CBD sought to invalidate the County’s approval of the re-entitlement, the environmental approvals for the re-entitlement and require the Company and the County to revise the environmental documentation. On January 22, 2020, the Company and County filed a demurrer and motion to strike the claims in the 2020 Action on the basis that the claims brought by CBD were resolved by the court in the 2017 Action, pursuant to the final judgment issued in the 2017 Action. The Company and County’s motion described in the previous sentence also included an alternative request that the court consolidate CBD’s claims in the 2020 Action with its disposition of any remaining matters relating to the 2017 Action. A hearing on these motions filed in the 2020 Action and on the Motion for Order Discharging Writ of Mandate (described above and relating to the 2017 Action) was held on February 14, 2020. At the hearing, the court granted the Company and County’s request to consolidate the 2020 Action with its adjudication of the Company and County’s compliance with the writ of mandate issued by the Court in the 2017 Action. The court denied, without prejudice, the Company and County’s motion to discharge the writ in the 2017 Action and their demurrer and motion to strike the claims in the 2020 Action, but the court further ruled that the Company and County could re-assert these arguments later once additional evidence was before the court. On January 22, 2021, the court conducted a hearing on the 2020 Action and the Motion for Order to Discharge the 2017 Writ of Mandate. At the January 22nd hearing, the court ruled in favor of the Company and the County on all issues: (1) granting the County’s Motion for Order to Discharge the 2017 Writ of Mandate and (2) rejecting each and every claim made by CBD in the 2020 Action. The court entered a final judgment reflecting its ruling in favor of the Company and the County on March 22, 2021 and CBD did not file an appeal by the court deadline, so the judgement is final. Centennial On April 30, 2019, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors granted final entitlement approval for the Centennial project. On May 15, 2019, Climate Resolve filed an action in Los Angeles Superior Court (the Climate Resolve Action), pursuant to CEQA and the California Planning and Zoning Law, against the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (collectively, LA County) concerning LA County’s granting of approvals for the Centennial project, including certification of the final environmental impact report and related findings (Centennial EIR); approval of associated general plan amendments; adoption of associated zoning; adoption of the Centennial Specific Plan; approval of a subdivision map for financing purposes; and adoption of a development agreement, among other approvals (collectively, the Centennial Approvals). Separately, on May 28, 2019, CBD and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) filed an action in Los Angeles County Superior Court (the CBD/CNPS Action) against LA County; like the Climate Resolve Action, the CBD/CNPS Action also challenges the Centennial Approvals. The Company, its wholly owned subsidiary Tejon Ranchcorp (“Ranchcorp”), and Centennial Founders, LLC (“Centennial”) are named as real parties-in-interest in both the Climate Resolve Action and the CBD/CNPS Action. The Climate Resolve Action and the CBD/CNPS Action collectively allege that LA County failed to properly follow the procedures and requirements of CEQA and the California Planning and Zoning Law. The Climate Resolve Action and the CBD/CNPS Action have been deemed “related” and have been consolidated for adjudication before the judge presiding over the Climate Resolve Action. The Climate Resolve Action and CBD/CNPS Action seek to invalidate the Centennial Approvals and require LA County to revise the environmental documentation related to the Centennial project. The court held three consolidated hearings for the CBD/CNPS Action and Climate Resolve Action on September 30, 2020, November 13, 2020, and January 8, 2021. On April 5, 2021 the court issued its decision denying the petition for writ of mandate by CBD/CNPS and granting the petition for writ of mandate filed by Climate Resolve. In granting Climate Resolve’s petition, the court found three specific areas where the EIR for the project was lacking. The court ruled that California’s Cap-and-Trade Program cannot be used as a compliance pathway for mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts for the project and therefore further ruled that additional analysis will be required related to all feasible mitigation of GHG impacts. The court also found that the EIR must provide additional analysis and explanation of how wildland fire risk on lands outside of the project site, posed by on-site ignition sources, is mitigated to less than significant. On April 19, 2021 CBD filed a motion for reconsideration with the court on the denial of their petition for writ of mandate to be granted prevailing party status in the Climate Resolve Action (“Motion for Reconsideration”). The hearing on the Motion for Reconsideration originally scheduled for August 13, 2021, was rescheduled to December 1, 2021. On November 30, 2021, the Company together with Ranchcorp and Centennial, entered into a Settlement Agreement with Climate Resolve. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company has agreed: (1) to make Centennial a net zero greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions project through various on-site and off-site measures, including but not limited to installing electric vehicle chargers and establishing and funding incentive programs for the purchase of electric vehicles; (2) to fund certain on-site and off-site fire protection and prevention measures; and (3) to provide annual public reports and create an organization to monitor progress towards these commitments. The foregoing is only a summary of the material terms of the Settlement Agreement and does not purport to be a complete description of the rights and obligations of the parties thereunder, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Settlement Agreement, a full copy of which is attached hereto this Annual Report (10-K). In exchange, Climate Resolve filed a request for dismissal of the Climate Resolve Action with prejudice from the Los Angeles County Superior Court. On December 3 , 2021, the Los Angeles Superior Court granted and entered Climate Resolve’s dismissal with prejudice concluding the Climate Resolve Action. On December 1, 2021, the Los Angeles Superior Court continued CBD/CNPS Motion for Reconsideration to January 14, 2022, directing CBD/CNPS to evaluate the Settlement Agreement reached in the Climate Resolve Action to address issues surrounding remedies should CBD be granted prevailing party status in the Climate Resolve Action, and to evaluate the potential to settle or otherwise address CBD’s objections to the Centennial project. To that end, the Company met and conferred twice on January 4, 2022 and January 20, 2022. On January 14, the Los Angeles County Superior Court heard CBD/CNPS Motion for Reconsideration and issued its decision granting CBD/CNPS prevailing party status in the Climate Resolve Action. The Los Angles County Superior Court set a tentative hearing date of February 25, 2022 concerning the entry of final judgment and awarding of appropriate remedies. Upon mutual request of the Parties and approval by the Court, the February 25, 2022 hearing date has been extended to March 30, 2022. Prior to and subsequent of final judgment being entered, appellate litigation may follow. To the extent there may be an adverse outcome of the claims still pending as described above, the monetary value cannot be estimated at this time. Proceedings Incidental to Business From time to time, the Company is involved in other proceedings incidental to its business, including actions relating to employee claims, real estate disputes, contractor disputes and grievance hearings before labor regulatory agencies. The outcome of these other proceedings is not predictable. However, based on current circumstances, the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these other proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, resu |
