SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER"

Transcription

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 03/20/2014 TIME: 10:25:00 AM JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Raymond Cadei CLERK: D. Ahee REPORTER/ERM: BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: CASE INIT.DATE: 01/09/2014 CASE TITLE: City of Sacramento vs. State of California CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited APPEARANCES Nature of Proceeding: Ruling on Submitted Matter (Motion for Order for Prejudgment Possession) taken under submission 3/19/2014 TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff City of Sacramento's ("City") Motion for Order for Prejudgment Possession and for Certification of Taxes is GRANTED on condition the proof of service of the summons is filed prior to or at the hearing. Specially appearing Defendant U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, successor-in-interest to Bank of America National Association, as Trustee, successor by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee, for the Certificate Holders of Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-TOP8's ("Trustee") opposes the motion. Although Defendant C-III Asset Management LLC also filed an opposition, the City has dismissed it from the complaint. The Court considered the Trustee's surreply and the City's response to the surreply. This is an eminent domain action. The City seeks an order allowing it to obtain prejudgment possession of the 600 K Street property ("Property") for a sports and events arena at which the Sacramento Kings will play ("Project"). (CCP ) According to the City, time is of the essence. Pursuant to a non-binding term sheet with Sacramento Basketball Holdings ("SBH"), project completion is preliminarily set for September (See Declaration of John Dangberg, ("Dangberg Decl.") 9.) In order to meet this preliminary project completion date, the City asserts that it must commence demolition in May/June (Id.) Thus, it must obtain immediate possession of the Property by April (Id. 13.) The City argues that failure to obtain the Property by April 2014 will put the Project at significant risk, including allowing the NBA to acquire the Sacramento Kings and relocate the team to another City. (Id.) On January 7, 2014, the City Council adopted the Resolution of Necessity. The Trustee appeared at the hearing and objected to the Resolution of Necessity. The State of California Public Employee's Retirement System ("CalPERS") is the owner in fee of the Property, with the exception of the building, structures, and other improvements. The Trustee owns the building and is the successor lessee on a long term ground lease. The building is currently unoccupied. Pursuant to CCP (d)(2), if the motion is opposed by a defendant or occupant within 30 days of service, the court may make an order for possession of the property upon consideration of the relevant facts and any opposition, and upon completion of a hearing on the motion, if the court finds Page 1

2 each of the following: (a) the plaintiff is entitled to take the property by eminent domain; (b) the plaintiff has deposited probable compensation with the state treasury; (c) there is an overriding need for the plaintiff to possess the property prior to the issuance of final judgment in the case, and the plaintiff will suffer a substantial hardship if the application for possession is denied or limited; and (d) the hardship that the plaintiff will suffer if possession is denied or limited outweighs any hardship on the defendant or occupant that would be caused by the granting of the order of possession. Entitlement to Eminent Domain The Trustee argues that the City is not entitled to eminent domain because the City has purportedly failed to comply with the statutory pre-condemnation requirements. Specifically, the Trustee argues that: (1) the City failed to make its Section Offer to the Trustee and any purported offer was improper and insufficient, (2) the City's Resolution of Necessity was flawed, and (3) the City failed to serve the summons on the Trustee and failed to provide 60-days' notice of the instant motion. 1. Gov't Code Section Offer Gov't Code ("Section ") provides "prior to adopting a resolution of necessity pursuant to Section of the Code of Civil Procedure and initiating negotiations for the acquisition of real property, the public entity shall establish an amount that it believes to be just compensation therefor, and shall make an offer to the owner or owners of record to acquire the property for the full amount so established, unless the owner cannot be located with reasonable diligence." (Gov. Code (emphasis added).) The Trustee first argues the City failed to make it an offer. On September 5, 2013, the City sent an offer ("Offer") to "U.S. Bank National Association, Michael Walker, Northern California President." The Trustee's counsel explains that "he is informed and believes that Mr. Walker has no connection to the Trust." (Declaration of George B. Speir ("Speir Decl."), 2.)He further states that "to my knowledge, the Trust received no direct notice from the City regarding the City's intent to adopt a Resolution of Necessity in connection with its efforts to acquire my property at 600 K Street." (Id.) Thus, according to the Trustee because the Offer was to U.S. Bank National Association, and not to U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, the offer was never served on the Trustee. The Court is not convinced that the City did not make a Section Offer to the Trustee. The Trustee's counsel's declaration does not support the fact that no offer was made. The Offer was mailed to the Trustee's counsel's at Miller Starr Regalia and the Trustee appeared at the hearing on the Resolution of Necessity objecting to the Offer on the same grounds. (Speir Decl., Ex. A; Trustee's Opp'n, at 12:28-3.) The Trustee next argues that the Offer of $4.35 million was "improper" because the City "improperly combined" the offer for the Trustee's property with an offer for CalPERS's separate property. (Trustee's Opp'n at 9-10.) The Trustee argues that the City's offer of $4.35 million was for "all interests" in the properties and therefore ran afoul of Section The Trustee argues that Section requires an offer to be made to the owner of each parcel to be condemned, and because "the Trust does not share ownership of its property with CalPERS or anyone else," the City should have made a separate offer to the Trustee. (Id.) The Trustee argues that the City had "an obligation to make an offer to each 'owner'," and that the City's offer failed to make an offer to the Trustee "for the property that it owns, by itself, in fee simple." (Surreply at 4-5.) The Trustee argues that the City's "combined offer to the Trustee and CalPERS, for their separate ownership interests, cannot be accepted by either party, and therefore Page 2

3 does not comply with Government Code section " (Id. at 5.) In arguing that the City's lump-sum offer rendered the City's offer "improper" (Trustee's Opp'n at 9-10), the Trustee cites to two cases, City of San Jose v. Great Oaks Water Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1011 and People By And Through Dept. of Public Works v. Lynbar, Inc. (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 870, 875. While these authorities confirm that each owner is entitled to "just compensation," they do not state that an "offer" made pursuant to Government Code is rendered "improper" if it offers one lump-sum amount for an entire property to several different owners. The Trustee also cites Code of Civil Procedure (a), which governs "Procedures Relating to Determination of Compensation" and provides that the value of each property interest must be "separately assessed and compensation awarded therefore." (Trustee's Opp'n at 9-10.) Like the cases of City of San Jose and Lynbar, however, Code of Civil Procedure (a) requires each property interest to be separately valued in determining the amounts of compensation to ultimately be paid to each owner of taken property; it does not address whether or when an offer will be proper under Section Here, the Offer complied with the plain text of Section It included "an offer" to the "owners of record" for what the City believed to be the "full amount" of "just compensation" for the "real property" to be acquired. (Gov. Code (a)(1).) While the City's lump-sum offer expressly did not separately value each distinct interest in the property, the Trustee has not shown that this renders the offer "improper" under Section Likewise, while the Offer described the lump-sum offer as being "based upon the 'undivided fee rule,'" the Trustee has not shown that the City's reference to this "rule" renders the offer improper under Section , or that such reference means that the property owners' "just compensation" will ultimately be calculated pursuant to such a rule. The Offer also included a written summary of how the City calculated its lump sum offer (i.e., by valuing each of the various property interests at issue) in compliance with Section (b), and invited the owners to continue the "negotiation process" regarding the purchase of the property. The Trustee has not shown that the City's "offer fails to comply with Section " Lastly, to the extent the Trustee objects to the Offer and valuation, because the matter will proceed to trial, the issue of just compensation may be adjudicated at that time. 2. Resolution of Necessity CCP provides that a Resolution of Necessity must contain the following: (a) A general statement of the public use for which the property is to be taken and a reference to the statute that authorizes the public entity to acquire the property by eminent domain. (b) A description of the general location and extent of the property to be taken, with sufficient detail for reasonable identification. (c) A declaration that the governing body of the public entity has found and determined each of the following: (1) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project. (2) The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. (3) The property described in the resolution is necessary for the proposed project. Page 3

4 (4) That either the offer required by Section of the Government Code has been made to the owner or owners of record, or the offer has not been made because the owner cannot be located with reasonable diligence. (CCP [emphasis added].) "Except as otherwise provided by statute, a resolution of necessity adopted by the governing body of the public entity pursuant to this article conclusively establishes the matters referred to in Section " ( , subd. (a), italics added.) But "[a] resolution of necessity does not have the effect prescribed in Section to the extent that its adoption or contents were influenced or affected by gross abuse of discretion by the governing body." ( , subd.(b).)" (Council of San Benito County Governments v. Hollister Inn, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 473, 485 [emphasis added.]) "A gross abuse of discretion may be established by showing that adoption of a resolution of necessity by the governing board of a public entity was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support, the governing body failed to follow the mandated procedure, or the governing body was irrevocably committed to taking the property regardless of the evidence presented at the resolution of necessity hearing." (Id.) The property owner asserting objections to the agency's right to take has the burden of establishing, by substantial evidence, that the resolution of necessity was adopted in an invalid manner, and because of a gross abuse of discretion is not entitled to its ordinary conclusive effect; if it does so, then the burden of proving the elements for a particular taking must rest on the agency to do so by the preponderance of the evidence. (Redevelopment Agency v. Norm's Slauson (1985) 173 Cal. App. 3rd 1121, ) The Trustee first argues that the Resolution of Necessity ("RON") was flawed because the City did not make a Section Offer to the Trustee. The Court disagrees. As noted above, the Court is not convinced that the City did not make a Section Offer on the Trustee. The Trustee further argues that the RON was flawed because it did not identify or seek to take the building or any property of the Trustee's because it only identifies CalPERS as the owner. Moreover, although the RON authorizes the City to take "the real property more particularly described in Exhibit A" and Exhibit B to the RON, the legal description specifically excludes "the building, structures, and other improvements located thereon." The Complaint also incorporates the same Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Thus, according to the Trustee, the City is only seeking to take CalPERS' interest in the land. The Court disagrees with the Trustee. CCP does not require that the RON identify all the owners of the property. Rather, it requires a declaration by the City Council that is has found and determined "that either the offer required by Section of the Government Code has been made to the owner or owners of record, or the offer has not been made because the owner cannot be located with reasonable diligence." (CCP (c)(4).) Here, the RON includes such a finding. (Speir Decl. Ex. A.) Additionally, the RON states that the City seeks to acquire "fee simple title in the property located at 600 K. Street, Sacramento, California, as more particularly described in Exhibit 'A' and Exhibit 'B'." (Id.) This is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of CCP (b). The Court also disagrees with the Trustee that the City is only seeking to take CalPERS' interest in the land, and not the Trustee's building or structures. Here, the Staff Report accompanying the RON states that "the property interests to be acquired include fee simple title in and to the subject property at 600 K Street Sacramento, California.... the City's proposed acquisition of the property will include fee title in and to the property, including any and all leases, improvements or other encumbrances on the property." The Complaint also states that "the real property or interests in real property which CITY is authorized to Page 4

5 acquire are identified as fee interests in and to property located at 600 K Street in the city of Sacramento and County of Sacramento, State of California, together with all improvements situated thereon and together with all rights appurtenant thereto." The Trustee is also fully aware of and has fought the City's attempt to take the building and structures. Moreover, such technical issues may be grounds for a demurrer or to challenge the valuation of the Property, but do not affect the standard for a Resolution of Necessity. Given the above, the Trustee has failed to satisfy its burden of establishing, by substantial evidence, that the City Council's adoption of the RON "was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support, the governing body failed to follow the mandated procedure, or the governing body was irrevocably committed to taking the property regardless of the evidence presented at the resolution of necessity hearing." (Council of San Benito County Governments, supra, 209 Cal. App. 4th at 485.) 3. Summons and Notice of Motion The Court has directed the City to re-serve the Trustee with a code-compliant summons. Moreover, given that the Trustee has opposed the instant motion on the merits, the Trustee has waived any defects or irregularities in the notice of motion. "This rule applies even when no notice was given at all." (Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1288 [internal citations and quotations omitted].) Additionally, the Trustee has not identified any prejudice based on improper notice. (Id.) Neither will failure to give notice deprive the Trustee of its rights to procedural due process because the Trustee has an opportunity to be heard, and is opposing, the City's motion. (See Israniv. Superior Court (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 621, 633.) Given all of the above, the Court finds that the City is entitled to take the property by eminent domain. Deposit of Probable Compensation The City has deposited $4,350,000, the amount determined by the appraiser as the fair market value of the Property with the State Treasury Condemnation Deposits Fund. Overriding Need for Pre-Judgment Possession There is an overriding need for the City to possess the property prior to the issuance of final judgment in the case, and the City will suffer a substantial hardship if the application for possession is denied or limited. The Trustee does not dispute the City's overriding need. Nor is it disputed that, if the construction deadlines are not met, the Project will be placed in significant risk, including allowing the NBA to acquire the Sacramento Kings and relocate the team to another City. Balancing of the Harms The hardship that the City will suffer if possession is denied or limited outweighs any hardship on the Trustee would be caused by the granting of the order of possession. The Property is currently unoccupied. Therefore, there is no substantial hardship to the condemnee. Additionally, the Trustee's opposition fails to specify any hardship that it will suffer. Certification of Taxes The request for order for certification of taxes (CCP ) is GRANTED. The Court will sign the orders submitted. Page 5

6 COURT RULING The matter was argued and submitted. The matter was taken under submission. SUBMITTED MATTER RULING The matter was argued and submitted. additional comments. The Court AFFIRMS the tentative ruling with the following At oral argument, the Trustee argued that the RON specifically excluded the building, structure, and improvements. The Trustee conceded, however, that the RON included its leasehold interest. The Trustee argued that the City has not approved the taking of the building, structure and improvements. The Trustee argued that the RON is to be strictly construed and the Staff Report accompanying the RON is not relevant. The Trustee, however, did not support its argument with legal authority. "The resolution of necessity is a legislative act." (Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency v. Izant (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 141, 150.) "The interpretation of local ordinances and resolutions is subject to ordinary rules of statutory construction." (County of Humboldt v. Robert v. McKee (2008) 165 Cal.App.4 th 1476, 1489.) The Court first begins by examining the language, giving the words their usual and ordinary meaning. (Id. at 1490.) If the words are ambiguous, the Court may look to extrinsic sources. (Id.) In such cases, the Court "selects the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences." (Id.) Here, the RON authorizes the City to take "the real property more particularly described in Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B" to the RON, the legal description in Exhibit A specifically excludes "the building, structures, and other improvements located thereon." The RON also provides that the City seeks to acquire "fee simple title in the property located at 600 K. Street, Sacramento, California..." "A conveyance of fee simple includes all appurtenances, including water rights, the right to extract oil and gas and minerals, the airspace over the land, standing timber, unharvested and unsevered crops, fixtures and appurtenant easements." (3 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2011), 9:3.) Given that Exhibit A excludes the building, structures and improvements, but the acquisition of the Property in "fee simple" includes all appurtenances and fixtures, the Court finds that the RON is ambiguous as to whether it excludes or includes the Trustee's building, structures and improvements. Thus, the Court may look to extrinsic evidence, such as the Staff Report accompanying the RON. The Staff Report accompanying the RON states that "the property interests to be acquired include fee simple title in and to the subject property at 600 K Street Sacramento, California.... the City's proposed acquisition of the property will include fee title in and to the property, including any and all leases, improvements or other encumbrances on the property." Moreover, the purpose of the RON is to acquire the Property to build an entertainment and sports arena. Inclusion of the building and improvements in the RON "comports most closely" with the intent of the RON and promotes the general purpose of the RON. (County of Humboldt, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at 1490.) Taking the Staff Report into consideration, the Court concludes that the RON intended to include the Trustee's building, structures and improvements. Page 6

7 Moreover, as noted above, the Trustee conceded that the RON includes its leasehold interest, thus, the City authorized the taking of the leasehold interest. "A lease grants the exclusive possession and use of the property to the tenant against the world, including the owner, for a consideration, for a term that endures for a definite and ascertained period... with a reversion to the owner at the end of the term." (7 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2004), 19.1.) The Trustee failed to explain how it would continue to have a right to occupy property with a structure despite the loss of its leasehold interest which vitiated its right to be on the land owned by CalPERS. Regardless, based on the above analysis, the Court has concluded that the building, structures and improvements were encompassed by the RON. Lastly, at oral argument, the Trustee proffered two cases which it had not previously cited to in its briefs: Marblehead Land Company v. Superior Court (1923) 61 Cal.App.777 and Weiler v. Superior Court (1922) 188 Cal.729. These cases are not dispositive on the issues before the Court. The Court finds that the City has demonstrated that it is entitled to eminent domain. (SB 743; Gov't Code 37501). The purported flaws with the Offer and RON do not affect the City's entitlement to eminent domain. Indeed, in order to invalidate the RON, the objecting party must show that the adoption was influenced or affected by gross abuse of discretion by the governing body." ( , subd.(b).)" (Council of San Benito County Governments v. Hollister Inn, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 473, 485]) The Court did not consider the City's post-hearing brief as it was not permitted by the Court. Given the ambiguity referenced above in relation to "Exhibit A", the City is directed to submit a modified Order for Prejudgment Possession pursuant to CRC Rule The modified order shall specifically states that it is also taking the building, improvements and structures on the property. The City is also directed to re-submit the Order for Certification of Taxes pursuant to CRC Rule Page 7

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO. 10:00 a.m. January 9, 2014 HON. EUGENE L. BALONON

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO. 10:00 a.m. January 9, 2014 HON. EUGENE L. BALONON SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE/TIME: JUDGE: 10:00 a.m. January 9, 2014 HON. EUGENE L. BALONON DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 14 P. MERCADO ISAAC GONZALEZ, JAMES CATHCART, and JULIAN CAMACHO,

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO. 10:00 a.m. June 21, 2013 HON. EUGENE L. BALONON

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO. 10:00 a.m. June 21, 2013 HON. EUGENE L. BALONON SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE/TIME: JUDGE: 10:00 a.m. June 21, 2013 HON. EUGENE L. BALONON DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 14 P. MERCADO CITY OF RIVERSIDE; SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER REDEVELOPMENT

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF VENTURA VENTURA MINUTE ORDER

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF VENTURA VENTURA MINUTE ORDER SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF VENTURA VENTURA MINUTE ORDER DATE: 01/29/2014 TIME: 10:55:00 AM Judicial Officer Presiding: Mark Borrell CLERK: Hellmi McIntyre REPORTER/ERM: CASE NO: 56-2013-00433986-CU-WM-VTA

More information

DUBLIN SCHOOLS DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

DUBLIN SCHOOLS DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT DUBLIN SCHOOLS DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 2018/19-03 DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ALAMEDA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION OF THE DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE: JUDGE: March 10, 2017 HON. SHELLEYANNE W. L. CHANG DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 24 E. HIGGINBOTHAM DR. JOEL MOSKOWITZ, an individual, Petitioner and Plaintiff,

More information

BILL NO. 5281(as amended) ORDINANCE NO. 5139

BILL NO. 5281(as amended) ORDINANCE NO. 5139 BILL NO. 5281(as amended) ORDINANCE NO. 5139 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHMOND HEIGHTS, MISSOURI, AND UNITED PLAZA, LLC. WHEREAS, on February 3,

More information

160A-439. Ordinance authorized as to repair, closing, and demolition of nonresidential buildings or structures; order of public officer.

160A-439. Ordinance authorized as to repair, closing, and demolition of nonresidential buildings or structures; order of public officer. 160A-439. Ordinance authorized as to repair, closing, and demolition of nonresidential buildings or structures; order of public officer. (a) Authority. The governing body of the city may adopt and enforce

More information

THIS INSTRUMENT IS BEING RECORDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ. NO RECORDING FEE IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE

THIS INSTRUMENT IS BEING RECORDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ. NO RECORDING FEE IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Santa Cruz Housing and Community Development Dept. Attn: Norm Daly 809 Center Street, Rm. 206 Santa Cruz, California 95060 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE

More information

DEED OF TRUST (WITH ABSOLUTE ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS RIDER)

DEED OF TRUST (WITH ABSOLUTE ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS RIDER) When Recorded Mail to: *** DEED OF TRUST (WITH ABSOLUTE ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS RIDER) This Deed of Trust is dated *** The TRUSTOR is by *** ( Trustor ). The Trustor s address is The TRUSTEE is Medallion Servicing

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Filed 8/11/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STANISLAUS COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF

More information

PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST. Date: City of Milpitas, CA 95035

PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST. Date: City of Milpitas, CA 95035 PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST Date: City of Milpitas, CA 95035 $10,335,400 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned Milpitas Unified School District, a public school district organized and existing

More information

Session of HOUSE BILL No By Committee on Judiciary 2-1

Session of HOUSE BILL No By Committee on Judiciary 2-1 Session of 0 HOUSE BILL No. 0 By Committee on Judiciary - 0 0 0 AN ACT concerning civil procedure; relating to redemption of real property; amending K.S.A. 0 Supp. 0- and repealing the existing section.

More information

DEED OF TRUST. TITLE SERVICES, LLC., an Idaho Limited Liability company (dba Lawyers Title of Treasure Valley), herein called TRUSTEE, and

DEED OF TRUST. TITLE SERVICES, LLC., an Idaho Limited Liability company (dba Lawyers Title of Treasure Valley), herein called TRUSTEE, and DEED OF TRUST THIS DEED OF TRUST, Made this day of, BETWEEN herein called GRANTOR, Whose address is TITLE SERVICES, LLC., an Idaho Limited Liability company (dba Lawyers Title of Treasure Valley), herein

More information

BY- LAWS OF EAGLE ROOST MANAGEMENT, INC.

BY- LAWS OF EAGLE ROOST MANAGEMENT, INC. Amendment 4 BY- LAWS OF EAGLE ROOST MANAGEMENT, INC. ARTICLE ONE PURPOSES I. This corporation shall be conducted as a non-profit corporation for the purposes set forth in its Articles of Incorporation

More information

Expropriation Act CHAPTER 156 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, as amended by

Expropriation Act CHAPTER 156 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, as amended by Expropriation Act CHAPTER 156 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, 1989 as amended by 1992, c. 11, s. 36; 1995-96, c. 19; 2001, c. 6, s. 106; 2006, c. 16, s. 7; 2017, c. 4, ss. 80-82 2018 Her Majesty the Queen in

More information

CHAPTER 158: VACANT BUILDINGS

CHAPTER 158: VACANT BUILDINGS CHAPTER 158: VACANT BUILDINGS Section 158.01 Intent 158.02 Declaration of Policy 158.03 Definitions 158.04 Vacant Building Determination; Notice 158.05 Appeal of Determination of Vacant Building 158.06

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE: JUDGE: August 24,2016 HON. SHELLEYANNE W. L. CHANG DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 24 E. HIGGINBOTHAM TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, a California

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Filed 12/23/10 Singh v. Cal. Mortgage and Realty CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not

More information

CHAPTER 33 ADMINISTRATION OF TRUSTS ARTICLE 1 TESTAMENTARY TRUSTS

CHAPTER 33 ADMINISTRATION OF TRUSTS ARTICLE 1 TESTAMENTARY TRUSTS CHAPTER 33 ADMINISTRATION OF TRUSTS 2014 NOTE: Unless otherwise indicated, this Title includes annotations drafted by the Law Revision Commission from the enactment of Title 15 GCA by P.L. 16-052 (Dec.

More information

CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT: 09 HEARING DATE: 04/26/17

CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT: 09 HEARING DATE: 04/26/17 1. TIME: 9:00 CASE#: MSC12-00247 CASE NAME: HARRY BARRETT VS. CASTLE PRINCIPLES HEARING ON MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FILED BY CASTLE PRINCIPLES LLC Unopposed granted. 2. TIME: 9:00 CASE#:

More information

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. In re the Marriage of Tanya Moman and Calvin Moman

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. In re the Marriage of Tanya Moman and Calvin Moman C073185 COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT In re the Marriage of Tanya Moman and Calvin Moman TANYA MOMAN, Respondent, v. CALVIN MOMAN, Appellant. Appeal from the Superior

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 6/25/14; pub. order 7/22/14 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE WILLIAM JEFFERSON & CO., INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v.

More information

CODE OF REGULATIONS FOR WESTFIELD PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

CODE OF REGULATIONS FOR WESTFIELD PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. CODE OF REGULATIONS FOR WESTFIELD PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. ARTICLE I GENERAL SECTION 1. Name and Nature of the Association. The name of the Association shall be Westfield Park Homeowners Association,

More information

DEED OF TRUST W I T N E S S E T H:

DEED OF TRUST W I T N E S S E T H: DEED OF TRUST THIS DEED OF TRUST ( this Deed of Trust ), made this day of, 20, by and between, whose address is (individually, collectively, jointly, and severally, Grantor ), and George Stanton, who resides

More information

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of California BILL LOCKYER. Attorney General : OPINION : No.

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of California BILL LOCKYER. Attorney General : OPINION : No. Page 1 of 6 TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of California BILL LOCKYER Attorney General OPINION No. 04-809 of July 14, 2005 BILL LOCKYER Attorney General SUSAN

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 2/3/16 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO WILSON DANTE PERRY, B264027 v. Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A146745

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A146745 Filed 9/29/17 Rosemary Court Properties v. Walker CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions

More information

Chapter 160A - Article 19

Chapter 160A - Article 19 Page 1 of 10 Part 6. Minimum Housing Standards. 160A-441. Exercise of police power authorized. It is hereby found and declared that the existence and occupation of dwellings in this State that are unfit

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 11/19/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO FIRSTMERIT BANK, N.A., Plaintiff and Appellant, E061480 v. DIANA L. REESE,

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF STEVENS

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF STEVENS SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF STEVENS STEVENS COUNTY, a political subdivision and duly organized and existing County of the State of Washington, Plaintiff, vs. EACH AND EVERY LOT, TRACT, PART,

More information

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Case 3:18-cv-01099-NJR-RJD Document 19 Filed 06/12/18 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #348 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS TODD RAMSEY, FREDERICK BUTLER, MARTA NELSON, DIANE

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA APPELLATE DIVISION 0 0 Filed // (ordered published by Supreme Ct. //) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA APPELLATE DIVISION THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Appellate Division No. --AP-000 Plaintiff and Respondent,

More information

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS Filed 11/6/13 TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS his opinion has been certified for publication in the Official Reports. It is being sent to assist the Court of Appeal in deciding whether to order

More information

{*148} OPINION. FRANCHINI, Justice.

{*148} OPINION. FRANCHINI, Justice. TEAM BANK V. MERIDIAN OIL INC., 1994-NMSC-083, 118 N.M. 147, 879 P.2d 779 (S. Ct. 1994) TEAM BANK, a corporation, as Trustee for the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MERIDIAN OIL INC.,

More information

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA:

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA: AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C, ON BEHALF OF SECOND STREET ACQUISITION PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND THE EXECUTION OF RELATED

More information

Administrative Rules for the Office of Professional Regulation Effective date: February 1, Table of Contents

Administrative Rules for the Office of Professional Regulation Effective date: February 1, Table of Contents Administrative Rules for the Office of Professional Regulation Effective date: February 1, 2003 Table of Contents PART I Administrative Rules for Procedures for Preliminary Sunrise Review Assessments Part

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,973 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS MEMORANDUM OPINION

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,973 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS MEMORANDUM OPINION NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,973 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS BRIAN RUSSELL and BRENT FLANDERS, Trustee of the BRENT EUGENE FLANDERS and LISA ANNE FLANDERS REVOCABLE FAMILY

More information

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA Document Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA In Re: Bankruptcy No. 68-00039 Great Plains Royalty Corporation, Chapter 7 Debtor. Great Plains Royalty Corporation, / Plaintiff,

More information

[~DJ FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

[~DJ FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Case 1:11-cv-08066-JGK Document 130 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 11 Case 1:11-cv-08066-JGK Document 108-6 Filed 12/17/14 Page 2 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK OKLAHOMA POLICE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (San Joaquin) ----

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (San Joaquin) ---- Filed 8/30/11 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ---- HACIENDA RANCH HOMES, INC., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT

More information

LOCAL RULES SUPERIOR COURT of CALIFORNIA, COUNTY of ORANGE DIVISION 3 CIVIL RULES

LOCAL RULES SUPERIOR COURT of CALIFORNIA, COUNTY of ORANGE DIVISION 3 CIVIL RULES DIVISION 3 CIVIL RULES Rule Effective Chapter 1. Civil Cases over $25,000 300. Renumbered as Rule 359 07/01/09 301. Classification 07/01/09 302. Renumbered as Rule 361 07/01/09 303. All-Purpose Assignment

More information

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D058284

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D058284 Filed 7/19/11; pub. order 8/11/11 (see end of opn.) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In re the Marriage of DELIA T. and ISAAC P. RAMIREZ DELIA T. RAMIREZ, Respondent,

More information

AN ACT to repeal (21), (22), (4) (cr), (4) (cy),

AN ACT to repeal (21), (22), (4) (cr), (4) (cy), 0 0 LEGISLATURE LRB /P PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOT READY FOR INTRODUCTION AN ACT to repeal.00 (),.00 (), 0. () (cr), 0. () (cy), 0. () (dr),.0 (m) (f).,.,.,.0 (),. () (g) and.; to renumber.; to renumber and

More information

TOHOPEKALIGA WATER AUTHORITY WATER, REUSE, AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM DEVELOPER'S SERVICE AGREEMENT

TOHOPEKALIGA WATER AUTHORITY WATER, REUSE, AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM DEVELOPER'S SERVICE AGREEMENT This Document Prepared by: David Thomas After Recording Return to: Theresa Hunter 951 Martin Luther King Blvd. Kissimmee, FL 32741 Parcel ID Number: TOHOPEKALIGA WATER AUTHORITY WATER, REUSE, AND WASTEWATER

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO B241246

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO B241246 Filed 3/28/13 Murphy v. City of Sierra Madre CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions

More information

AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF TRUST

AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF TRUST AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF TRUST THIS AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF TRUST Is made and entered into this day of, 20, by and between, as Grantors and Beneficiaries, (hereinafter referred to as the "Beneficiaries",

More information

scc Doc 51 Filed 07/16/15 Entered 07/16/15 15:54:38 Main Document Pg 1 of 23

scc Doc 51 Filed 07/16/15 Entered 07/16/15 15:54:38 Main Document Pg 1 of 23 Pg 1 of 23 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) In re: ) Chapter 11 ) SABINE OIL & GAS CORPORATION, et al., 1 ) Case No. 15-11835 (SCC) ) Debtors. ) (Joint Administration Requested)

More information

DEED OF TRUST. County and State Where Real Property is located:

DEED OF TRUST. County and State Where Real Property is located: When Recorded Return to: Homeownership Programs or Single Family Programs, Arizona, DEED OF TRUST Effective Date: County and State Where Real Property is located: Trustor (Name, Mailing Address and Zip

More information

Senate Bill No. 446 Committee on Judiciary

Senate Bill No. 446 Committee on Judiciary Senate Bill No. 446 Committee on Judiciary CHAPTER... AN ACT relating to business; establishing procedures for the ratification or validation of certain noncompliant corporate acts; providing that a trust

More information

Signed June 24, 2017 United States Bankruptcy Judge

Signed June 24, 2017 United States Bankruptcy Judge The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described. Signed June 24, 2017 United States Bankruptcy Judge IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 10/03/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE COUNTY OF ORANGE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY,

More information

O.C.G.A GEORGIA CODE Copyright 2013 by The State of Georgia All rights reserved. *** Current Through the 2013 Regular Session ***

O.C.G.A GEORGIA CODE Copyright 2013 by The State of Georgia All rights reserved. *** Current Through the 2013 Regular Session *** O.C.G.A. 36-63-1 O.C.G.A. 36-63- 1 (2013) 36-63-1. Short title This chapter may be referred to as the "Resource Recovery Development Authorities Law." O.C.G.A. 36-63-2 O.C.G.A. 36-63- 2 (2013) 36-63-2.

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 12/28/12 Hong v. Creed Consulting CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

RESTATED BY LAWS OF W. E. HOMEOWNER S ASSOCIATION, INC. ARTICLE I. OFFICES ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS

RESTATED BY LAWS OF W. E. HOMEOWNER S ASSOCIATION, INC. ARTICLE I. OFFICES ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS RESTATED BY LAWS OF W. E. HOMEOWNER S ASSOCIATION, INC. W. E. Homeowner s Association, Inc., is a non-profit corporation organized to enforce the Declaration of Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions for

More information

5/2/2016. Utah Municipal Code. Outdoor Advertising Act. Utah Code Utah Code 10-9a-511. Utah Code Utah Code 10-9a-513

5/2/2016. Utah Municipal Code. Outdoor Advertising Act. Utah Code Utah Code 10-9a-511. Utah Code Utah Code 10-9a-513 It was the best of times, it was the worst of times... Charles Dickens Litigation of Billboard Relocation Requests Presented by Samantha Slark and Katherine Lewis Outdoor Advertising Act Utah Municipal

More information

JANUARY 2012 LAW REVIEW PRIVATE PROPERTY MINERAL RIGHTS UNDER STATE PARKS

JANUARY 2012 LAW REVIEW PRIVATE PROPERTY MINERAL RIGHTS UNDER STATE PARKS PRIVATE PROPERTY MINERAL RIGHTS UNDER STATE PARKS James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2012 James C. Kozlowski When private land is originally conveyed to develop a state park, the State may not in fact have

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 114,271. CITY OF TOPEKA, KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 114,271. CITY OF TOPEKA, KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 114,271 CHARLES NAUHEIM d/b/a KANSAS FIRE AND SAFETY EQUIPMENT, and HAL G. RICHARDSON d/b/a BUENO FOOD BRAND, TOPEKA VINYL TOP, and MINUTEMAN SOLAR FILM,

More information

REPORT TO COUNCIL City of Sacramento

REPORT TO COUNCIL City of Sacramento REPORT TO COUNCIL City of Sacramento 915 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-2604 www.cityofsacramento.org 23 STAFF September 7, 2010 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Title: Ratify Amendments

More information

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL (Minute Order)

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL (Minute Order) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO Gordon D Schaber Courthouse 720 Ninth STREET Sacramento, CA 95814-1311 SHORT TITLE: Bohannan vs. Professional Cycle Parts CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Filed 1/13/16 TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES LOUISE CHEN, ) No. BV 031047 ) Plaintiff

More information

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 0 TIMOTHY J. SABO, SB # E-mail: sabo@lbbslaw.com KAREN A. FELD, SB# E-Mail: kfeld@lbbslaw.com 0 East Hospitality Lane, Suite 00 San Bernardino, California 0 Telephone: 0..0 Facsimile: 0.. Attorneys for

More information

28A Powers of a personal representative or fiduciary. (a) Except as qualified by express limitations imposed in a will of the decedent or a

28A Powers of a personal representative or fiduciary. (a) Except as qualified by express limitations imposed in a will of the decedent or a 28A-13-3. Powers of a personal representative or fiduciary. (a) Except as qualified by express limitations imposed in a will of the decedent or a court order, and subject to the provisions of G.S. 28A-13-6

More information

LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT

LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT RECORDING REQUESTED BY Alameda County Clerk of the Board 1221 Oak Street Room 536 Oakland CA 94612 AND WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO: Alameda County Clerk of the Board 1221 Oak Street Room 536 Oakland CA 94612

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (Sacramento) ----

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (Sacramento) ---- Filed 12/29/08; pub. order 1/23/09 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- SIXELLS, LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant, C056267 (Super.

More information

Recent Developments in Eminent Domain Case Law. Regina Danner, ESQ Richards, Watson & Gershon

Recent Developments in Eminent Domain Case Law. Regina Danner, ESQ Richards, Watson & Gershon Recent Developments in Eminent Domain Case Law Regina Danner, ESQ Richards, Watson & Gershon Property owner sought to establish right to an irrevocable license for an uninterrupted right to continue to

More information

1. CIVIL RULES GENERAL PROVISIONS ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL LITIGATION MARIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - UNIFORM LOCAL RULES

1. CIVIL RULES GENERAL PROVISIONS ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL LITIGATION MARIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - UNIFORM LOCAL RULES 1. CIVIL RULES GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.1 CITATION These civil rules should be cited as "Marin County Rule, Civil" or "MCR Civ" followed by the rule number (e.g., Marin County Rule, Civil 1.1 or MCR Civ 1.1).

More information

BYLAWS OF CAPITAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation ARTICLE I NAME

BYLAWS OF CAPITAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation ARTICLE I NAME BYLAWS OF CAPITAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation ARTICLE I NAME The name of this corporation shall be Capital Facilities Development Corporation (the

More information

The Case for Recovery of Business Loss in the Taking of Real Property

The Case for Recovery of Business Loss in the Taking of Real Property To present the full picture to a trier of fact, the cost-to-cure must be weighed against the damages it seeks to mitigate. To permit a condemning agency to present evidence of a cost-to-cure without fully

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Filed 1/10/11; pub. order 1/24/11 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTEREY/SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL et al.,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 6/15/10 Greer v. Safeway, Inc. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE/TIME JUDGE May 24, 2013, 9:00 a.m. HON. MICHAEL KENNY DEPT. NO. CLERK 31 S. LEE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COALITION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Case No.: 34-2012-80001158

More information

ON EXPROPRIATION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY LAW ON EXPROPRIATION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS. Article 1 Purpose of Law

ON EXPROPRIATION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY LAW ON EXPROPRIATION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS. Article 1 Purpose of Law OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVA / PRISTINA: YEAR IV / No. 52 / 08 MAY 2009 Law No. 03/L-139 ON EXPROPRIATION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY Assembly of Republic of Kosovo, Based on Article 65 (1) of

More information

CASENOTE. Filed 7/23/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

CASENOTE. Filed 7/23/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CASENOTE LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS A PLAINTIFF S VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE CONSTITUTES A FAILURE TO OBTAIN A MORE FAVORABLE JUDGMENT OR AWARD, THUS TRIGGERING A DEFENDANT S RIGHT TO EXPERT WITNESS

More information

2017 PA Super 386 : : : : : : : : : :

2017 PA Super 386 : : : : : : : : : : 2017 PA Super 386 FRANCES A. RUSSO v. ROSEMARIE POLIDORO AND CAROL TRAMA, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 134 EDA 2017 Appeal from the Order December 5, 2016 In the Court of Common

More information

No December 17, P.2d 1279

No December 17, P.2d 1279 100 Nev. 710, 710 (1984) First Western v. Vegas Continental Printed on: 10/20/01 Page # 1 FIRST WESTERN FINANCIAL CORPORATION and FIRST WESTERN SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, Appellants, v. VEGAS CONTINENTAL and

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 ALEX SOTO and VINCE EAGEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs,

More information

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No.: 24-C UNREPORTED

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No.: 24-C UNREPORTED Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No.: 24-C-10-004437 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2090 September Term, 2017 CHARLES MUSKIN v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS AND TAXATION

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA RICHARD N. SIEVING, ESQ. (SB #33634) JENNIFER L. SNODGRASS, ESQ. (SB #78) 2 THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. Attorneys at Law 3 0 Howe Avenue, Suite 2N Sacramento, California 982 4 Telephone: (96) 444-3366

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 9/10/14 Los Alamitos Unif. School Dist. v. Howard Contracting CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 10/23/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE SAVE LAFAYETTE TREES et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LAFAYETTE,

More information

BYLAWS' OF HERITAGE PLACE SECTIONS I, II, III, IV, V, VI, AND VII HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS

BYLAWS' OF HERITAGE PLACE SECTIONS I, II, III, IV, V, VI, AND VII HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS BYLAWS' OF HERITAGE PLACE SECTIONS I, II, III, IV, V, VI, AND VII HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS HERITAGE PLACE SECTIONS I, II, III, IV, V, VI, AND VII HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., which

More information

NC General Statutes - Chapter 43 Article 4 1

NC General Statutes - Chapter 43 Article 4 1 Article 4. Registration and Effect. 43-13. Manner of registration. (a) The register of deeds shall register and index, as hereinafter provided, the decree of title before mentioned and all subsequent transfers

More information

BYLAWS ARTICLE I. CREATION AND APPLICATION

BYLAWS ARTICLE I. CREATION AND APPLICATION BYLAWS OF VILLAGE GREEN CUMBERLAND HOMEOWNER S ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I. CREATION AND APPLICATION Section 1.1 Creation. This corporation is organized under the Maine Nonprofit Corporation Act in connection

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Reading City Council, : Appellant : : v. : : No. 29 C.D. 2012 City of Reading Charter Board : Argued: September 10, 2012 BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

More information

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 IL App (1st 143089 No. 1-14-3089 Opinion filed September 29, 2015 Second Division IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ILLINOIS SERVICE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO,

More information

APPEARANCES. See attached Statement of Intended Decision. DATE: 01/23/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 1 DEPT: C-73. Calendar No.

APPEARANCES. See attached Statement of Intended Decision. DATE: 01/23/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 1 DEPT: C-73. Calendar No. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL MINUTE ORDER DATE: 01/23/2015 TIME: 12:00:00 PM DEPT: C-73 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Joel R. Wohlfeil CLERK: Juanita Cerda REPORTER/ERM: Not

More information

Case Document 763 Filed in TXSB on 11/06/18 Page 1 of 18

Case Document 763 Filed in TXSB on 11/06/18 Page 1 of 18 Case 18-30197 Document 763 Filed in TXSB on 11/06/18 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION In re: Chapter 11 LOCKWOOD HOLDINGS, INC., et

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE: JUDGE: January 6, 2017 10:00 a.m. HON. SHELLEYANNE W. L. CHANG DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 24 E. HIGGINBOTHAM CALIFORNIA DISABILITY SERVICES ASSOCIATION, a

More information

NC General Statutes - Chapter 59 Article 2 1

NC General Statutes - Chapter 59 Article 2 1 Article 2. Uniform Partnership Act. Part 1. Preliminary Provisions. 59-31. North Carolina Uniform Partnership Act. Articles 2 through 4A, inclusive, of this Chapter shall be known and may be cited as the

More information

OPERATING AGREEMENT OF {}, A NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WITNESSETH: ARTICLE I

OPERATING AGREEMENT OF {}, A NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WITNESSETH: ARTICLE I [New York LLC Complex Operating Agreement with Options for Various Situations]* OPERATING AGREEMENT OF {}, A NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Operating Agreement, dated as of {effective date -- may not

More information

New Jersey Statutes Title 15A Corporations, Nonprofit

New Jersey Statutes Title 15A Corporations, Nonprofit New Jersey Statutes Title 15A Corporations, Nonprofit Last modified: March 29, 2010 This was copied from multiple HTML documents and may contain transcription errors. The original HTML pages came from

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO APPELLATE DIVISION Filed 8/29/16; published by order of Supreme Court 11/30/16 (see end of opn.) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO APPELLATE DIVISION U.S. FINANCIAL, L.P. as Trustee, etc., Plaintiff

More information

Case3:13-cv CRB Document25 Filed08/15/13 Page1 of 5

Case3:13-cv CRB Document25 Filed08/15/13 Page1 of 5 Case:-cv-0-CRB Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 SCOTT A. KRONLAND (SBN ) JONATHAN WEISSGLASS (SBN 00) ERIC P. BROWN (SBN ) Altshuler Berzon LLP Post Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, CA 0 Tel: () - Fax: ()

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA REL:11/16/07marblecityplaza Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,

More information

CITY OF ROHNERT PARK COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL REPORT. Meeting Date: May 10, Public Works and Community Services

CITY OF ROHNERT PARK COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL REPORT. Meeting Date: May 10, Public Works and Community Services Agenda Packet Preparation TIMELINES for Regular City Council Meetings held on the 2 nd & 4 th Tuesdays of each month: Resolutions (other than standard formats for authorizations and approvals), Ordinances

More information

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2017 SESSION LAW HOUSE BILL 584

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2017 SESSION LAW HOUSE BILL 584 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2017 SESSION LAW 2017-110 HOUSE BILL 584 AN ACT TO CLARIFY THE PROCESS FOR CORRECTING NONMATERIAL ERRORS IN RECORDED INSTRUMENTS OF TITLE, TO CREATE A CURATIVE

More information

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D.

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. Michael D. McLachlan (State Bar No. 1) LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. McLACHLAN, APC West Sixth Street, Suite 1 Los Angeles, California 001 Telephone: (1) 0- Facsimile: (1) 0- mike@mclachlanlaw.com Daniel M.

More information

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. January 20, 2000

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. January 20, 2000 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA January 20, 2000 The Regents of the University of California met on the above date at UCSF - Laurel Heights, San Francisco. Present: In attendance: Regents Atkinson,

More information

LEXSEE 238 MICH APP 664

LEXSEE 238 MICH APP 664 Page 1 LEXSEE 238 MICH APP 664 OUTDOOR SYSTEMS ADVERTISING, INC., Plaintiff--Appellant, v JOHN J. KORTH, a/k/a 579 E. JEFFERSON PROPERTIES, INC., Defendant--Appellee. No. 210281 COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN

More information