of Citizens for Beach Rights v. City of San Diego, Case No. D069638, Filed Filed March March 28, 28, Haller: and Rules of Court, rule (c).
|
|
- Joel Tate
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District. Division One Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District. Division One Kevin J. Lane, Clerk/Administrator 1901 Harrison 1 Street - Suite - Suite 900 Kevin J. Lane, Clerk/Administrator Electronically RECEIVED on 4/13/2017 at 253,43 Oakland, California 'ornia E Electronically FILED on 4/13/2017 by Michael Hubbard. Deputy Clerk voice I U.2/ fax - fax tsiv.v I Uff BURKE, WILLIAMS E., & SORENSEN, LLP Harrison Street - Suite 900 Oakland, California voice fax BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP Direct No.: nmuscolino@bwslaw.com Direct No.: nmuscolino@bwslaw.com P.J. Hon. Gilbert Nares, Associate Justice Justice Hon. Judith L. L. Haller, Associate Justice California Court of of Appeal Fourth Appellate District, Division One One 750 B Street, Suite San Diego, California Hon. Gilbert Nares, Associate Justice Hon. Judith L. Haller, Associate Justice California Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District, Division One 750 B Street, Suite 300 San Diego, California Re: Request for for Publication of of Citizens for Beach Rights v. City of San Diego, Case No. D069638, Filed Filed March March 28, 28, Re: Request for Publication of Citizens for Beach Rights v. City of San Diego, Case No. D069638, Filed March 28, Dear Justices McConnell, Nares Nares and and Haller: Haller: Dear Justices McConnell, Nares and Haller: The League of of California Cities ("League") and and the California the California State State Association Association of of Counties ("CSAC") respectfully request that that the Court the Court publish publish its opinion its opinion in Citizens for Beach Rights v. City of San Diego (filed March 28, 2017), Appeal No. No. D ("Opinion"). The Opinion satisfies the the standards for publication for under under California California Rules Rules of Court, rule (c). The League of California Cities ("League") and the California State Association of Counties ("CSAC") respectfully request that the Court publish its opinion in Citizens for Beach Rights v. City of San Diego (filed March 28, 2017), Appeal No. D ("Opinion"). The Opinion satisfies the standards for publication under California Rules of Court, rule (c). 1. Interest of the League and CSAC Interest of the League and CSAC The League is is an an association of 475 of 475 California California cities cities dedicated dedicated to protecting to protecting and and restoring local control to to provide for for the the public public health, health, safety, safety, and welfare and welfare of their of their residents, and and to to enhance the quality the quality of life of for life all for Californians. all The League The League is advised advised by its Legal Advocacy Committee ("League Committee"), which which is comprised comprised of 24 city of 24 city attorneys representing all all regions of the of State. the State. The League The League Committee Committee monitors monitors litigation of concern to to municipalities and and identifies cases cases that are that of are statewide of statewide or or nationwide The The League Committee has identified has identified this case this as case having as such having such The League is an association of 475 California cities dedicated to protecting and restoring local control to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare of their residents, and to enhance the quality of life for all Californians. The League is advised by its Legal Advocacy Committee ("League Committee"), which is comprised of 24 city attorneys representing all regions of the State. The League Committee monitors litigation of concern to municipalities and identifies cases that are of statewide or nationwide The League Committee has identified this case as having such CSAC is a non-profit association of 58 of 58 California counties. counties. CSAC CSAC sponsors sponsors a a Litigation Coordination Program, which which is administered is by the by County the County Counsels' Counsels' Association of of California, and and overseen by a by Litigation a Litigation Overview Overview Committee Committee comprised comprised of county counsels throughout the the state. state. The Litigation The Litigation Overview Overview Committee Committee monitors monitors CSAC is anon -profit association of 58 California counties. CSAC sponsors a Litigation Coordination Program, which is administered by the County Counsels' Association of California, and overseen by a Litigation Overview Committee comprised of county counsels throughout the state. The Litigation Overview Committee monitors v2 Los Angeles - Inland Empire - Marin - Marin County County - Oakland - Oakland - Orange - Orange County County - Palm - Desert Palm - Desert San Francisco - San Francisco - Silicon Valley - Silicon - Ventura Valley County - Ventura County Los Angeles -Inland Empire - Marin County -Oakland -Orange County -Palm Desert -San Francisco -Silicon Valley -Ventura County
2 BURKF, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN. LLP Page 2 Page 2 litigation of concern to counties statewide, and has identified this case as having such litigation of concern to counties statewide, and has identified this case as having such 2. The Opinion Satisfies Rule (c) 2. The Opinion Satisfies Rule (c) California Rules of Court, rule (c), sets forth a liberal standard for publication. It encourages publication of opinions that meet any one of nine criteria. (Rules of Court, rule (c) ["An opinion... should be certified for publication" if it satisfies any one of nine criteria].)1 The Opinion satisfies criteria nos. 2 and 6. California Rules of Court, rule (c), sets forth a liberal standard for publication. It encourages publication of opinions that meet any one of nine criteria. (Rules of Court, rule (c) ["An opinion... should be certified for publication" if it satisfies any one of nine criteria].)' The Opinion satisfies criteria nos. 2 and 6. First, the Opinion applies an existing rule of law to facts that are significantly different than those in existing published opinions. (Rules of Court, rule (c)(2).) The appellate courts have applied the 90-day statute of limitations of Government Code section 65009(c)(1)(E) in a variety of different fact patterns. (See, e.g., Travis v. County of Santa Cruz (2004) 33 Cal.4th 757, [plaintiff timely challenged conditions imposed on second unit permits under 90-day statute of limitations of section 65009(c)(1)(E)]; Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1493 [challenge to Community Development Department Director's letter approving construction of Wal-Mart Supercenter barred by 90-day statute of limitations of section 65009(c)(1)(E)]; Honig v. San Francisco Planning Dept. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 520, , [purported challenge to building permit was barred by plaintiff's failure to timely challenge underlying approval of variance within 90 days, pursuant to section 65009(c)(1)(E)].) However, no published opinion has addressed the First, the Opinion applies an existing rule of law to facts that are significantly different than those in existing published opinions. (Rules of Court, rule (c)(2).) The appellate courts have applied the 90-day statute of limitations of Government Code section 65009(c)(1)(E) in a variety of different fact patterns. (See, e.g., Travis v. County of Santa Cruz (2004) 33 Cal.4th 757, [plaintiff timely challenged conditions imposed on second unit permits under 90-day statute of limitations of section 65009(c)(1)(E)]; Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1493 [challenge to Community Development Department Director's letter approving construction of Wal-Mart Supercenter barred by 90-day statute of limitations of section 65009(c)(1)(E)]; Honig v. San Francisco Planning Dept. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 520, , [purported challenge to building permit was barred by plaintiff's failure to timely challenge underlying approval of variance within 90 days, pursuant to section 65009(c)(1)(E)].) However, no published opinion has addressed the Rule (c) provides that an opinion should be published if it: Rule (c) provides that an opinion should be published if it: (1) Establishes a new rule of law; (2) Applies an existing rule of law to a set of facts significantly different from those stated in published opinions; (3) Modifies, explains, or criticizes with reasons given, an existing rule of law; (4) Advances a new interpretation, clarification, criticism, or construction of a provision of a constitution, statute, ordinance, or court rule; (5) Addresses or creates an apparent conflict in the law; (6) Involves a legal issue of continuing public interest; (7) Makes a significant contribution to legal literature by reviewing either the development of a common law rule or the legislative or judicial history of a provision of a constitution, statute, or other written law; (8) Invokes a previously overlooked rule of law, or reaffirms a principle of law not applied in a recently reported decision; or (9) Is accompanied by a separate opinion concurring or dissenting on a legal issue, and publication of the majority and separate opinions would make a significant contribution to the development of the law. [paragraph breaks omitted.] (1) Establishes a new rule of law; (2) Applies an existing rule of law to a set of facts significantly different from those stated in published opinions; (3) Modifies, explains, or criticizes with reasons given, an existing rule of law; (4) Advances a new interpretation, clarification, criticism, or construction of a provision of a constitution, statute, ordinance, or court rule; (5) Addresses or creates an apparent conflict in the law; (6) Involves a legal issue of continuing public interest; (7) Makes a significant contribution to legal literature by reviewing either the development of a common law rule or the legislative or judicial history of a provision of a constitution, statute, or other written law; (8) Invokes a previously overlooked rule of law, or reaffirms a principle of law not applied in a recently reported decision; or (9) Is accompanied by a separate opinion concurring or dissenting on a legal issue, and publication of the majority and separate opinions would make a significant contribution to the development of the law. [paragraph breaks omitted.]
3 BURKI WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP BURICE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP Page 3 Page 3 argument plaintiff presented in this matter that Section does not apply to a final development approval because the plaintiff contends an underlying, requisite permit has expired. In rejecting that argument, the Opinion establishes that the 90-day statute of limitations of section 65009(c)(1)(E) applies to a public agency's determination that the applicant is entitled to proceed with the subject project. argument plaintiff presented in this matter that Section does not apply to a final development approval because the plaintiff contends an underlying, requisite permit has expired. In rejecting that argument, the Opinion establishes that the 90-day statute of limitations of section 65009(c)(1)(E) applies to a public agency's determination that the applicant is entitled to proceed with the subject project. Second, this Court's opinion involves a legal issue of continuing public interest. (Rules of Court, rule (c)(6).) The short limitations period of section 65009(c)(1) is "intended to provide certainty for property owners and local governments regarding" local planning and zoning decisions. (Gov. Code 65009, subdivs. (a)(2) & (a)(3).) But this legislative purpose can only be achieved when all interested parties public entities and property owners alike have certainty regarding precisely when the 90-day limitations period commences to run. Ambiguity on the commencement of the limitations period has numerous unfortunate consequences, including without limitation: Second, this Court's opinion involves a legal issue of continuing public interest. (Rules of Court, rule (c)(6).) The short limitations period of section 65009(c)(1) is "intended to provide certainty for property owners and local governments regarding" local planning and zoning decisions. (Gov. Code 65009, subdivs. (a)(2) &(a)(3).) But this legislative purpose can only be achieved when all interested parties public entities and property owners alike have certainty regarding precisely when the 90-day limitations period commences to run. Ambiguity on the commencement of the limitations period has numerous unfortunate consequences, including without limitation: Public entities, property owners, and interested persons may waste their respective resources debating, and even litigating, issues for which this Court's Opinion would provide useful guidance. Public entities, property owners, and interested persons may waste their respective resources debating, and even litigating, issues for which this Court's Opinion would provide useful guidance. Judicial resources could be unnecessarily wasted through such litigation. Judicial resources could be unnecessarily wasted through such litigation. The resources of tax-payer funded public entities could be unnecessarily wasted in such litigation. The resources of tax -payer funded public entities could be unnecessarily wasted in such litigation. The "chilling effect" on projects that lawsuits challenging local zoning and planning decisions would not, contrary to the Legislature's express intent, be "alleviate[d]." (See Gov. Code 65009, subdiv. (a)(2).) The "chilling effect" on projects that lawsuits challenging local zoning and planning decisions would not, contrary to the Legislature's express intent, be "alleviate[d]." (See Gov. Code 65009, subdiv. (a)(2).) In sum, multiple grounds support the publication of the Opinion. In sum, multiple grounds support the publication of the Opinion.
4 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP BURKF, WILLIAMS & SOI~ENSFN, LLP Page 4 Page 4 3. Conclusion 3. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the League and CSAC believe that the Opinion meets the standards for publication set forth in California Rules of Court, rule (c), and respectfully urge this Court to order the Opinion published. Based on the foregoing, the League and CSAC believe that the Opinion meets the standards for publication set forth in California Rules of Court, rule (c), and respectfully urge this Court to order the Opinion published. Sincerely, Sincerely, Burke, Williams &Sorensen, LLP 1~~~iZ"~ Kevin D. Siegel Kevin D. Siegel ~L~ KDS:cs KDS:cs r Nic las J. Muscolino Nic las J. Muscolino
5 Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District. Division One Kevin J. Lane, Clerk/Administrator Electronically FILED on 4/13/2017 by Michael Hubbard. Deputy Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division 1 PROOF OF SERVICE (Court of Appeal) Case Name: Citizens for Beach Rights v. City of San Diego Court of Appeal Case Number: D Superior Court Case Number: CU-WM-CTL 1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action. 2. My address used to e-serve: ksiegel@bwslaw.com 3. I served by a copy of the following document(s) indicated below: Title(s) of papers e-served: Filing Type REQUEST - REQUEST TO PUBLISH OPINION Document Title Request for Publication of Citizens for Beac Righ PERSON SERVED ADDRESS Type Craig Sherman Craig A. Sherman, APC Jana Will San Diego City Attorney Kevin Siegel Nicholas Muscolino craigshermanapc@gmail.com e- Service jwill@sandiego.gov e- Service ksiegel@bwslaw.com e- Service DATE / TIME nmuscolino@bwslaw.com e- Service 2017 This proof of service was automatically created, submitted and signed on my behalf through my agreements with TrueFiling and its contents are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.
6 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. -- Date /s/kevin Siegel Signature Siegel, Kevin (194787) Last Name, First Name (PNum) Law Firm
California State Association of Counties
California State Association of Counties March 25,2011 1100 K Srreet Suite 101 Sacramento California 95614 """ 916.327.7500 Focsimik 916.441.5507 California Court of Appeal, First District, Division Three
More informationREMY I MOOSE I MANLEY LLP. September 23, 2015
ORIGINAl REMY I MOOSE I MANLEY LLP Sabrina V. Teller steller@rrnmenvirolaw.com VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS The Honorable Judith L. Haller, Acting Presiding Justice The Honorable Cynthia Aaron, Associate Justice
More informationMarch 25, Request for Publication Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (First District Court of Appeal Case No.
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Co-un-of Appt~al Firs,t Appellate.District FILED MAR 2 6 2013 REMY M 0 0 S E I M A N L E Diana Herbert, Clerk March 25, 2013 Ltby The Honorable William R. McGuiness, Administrative
More informationAT T ORNEYS AT LAW WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD SUIT E 980 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA August 7, 2014
M IC H AEL M. POLLAK SCOTT J. VIDA D AN IEL P. BAR ER * JU D Y L. M ckelvey LAWRENCE J. SHER H AM ED AM IR I GH AEM M AGH AM I JUDY A. BARNWELL ANNA L. BIRENBAUM VICTORIA L. GUNTHER PO LLA K, VIDA & FIS
More informationRESPOND TO ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE. March 3, 2011
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW www. awa rro rn eys. com RESPOND TO ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE Email: wmiliband@awattorneys.com Direct Dial: (949) 250-5416 Orange County 18881 Von Karman Ave., Suite
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE. Plaintiff, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant,
Case Nos. Al35335 & A136212 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, Respondent, and
More informationDear Chief Justice George and Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court:
California Supreme Court 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Re: County of Orange v. Barratt American, Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 420 Amicus Curiae Letter In Support of Review (Rule
More informationRequest for Publication
June 24, 2016 IVAN DELVENTHAL idelventhal@publiclawgroup.com 415.848.7218 The Honorable Presiding Justice and Associate Justices Court of Appeal First Appellate District, Division Three 350 McAllister
More informationApril 22, Request for Publication: Center for Biological Diversity v. California Fish and Game Commission, Case No. A127555
Whitman F. Manley wmanley@rtmmlaw.com VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS The Honorable J. Anthony Kline, Presiding Justice California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA
More informationCentex Homes v. Superior Court (City of San Diego)
MICHAEL M. POLLAK SCOTT J. VIDA GIRARD FISHER DANIEL P. BARER JUDY L. McKELVEY LAWRENCE J. SHER HAMED AMIRI GHAEMMAGHAMI JUDY A. BARNWELL ANNAL. BIRENBAUM VICTORIA L. GUNTHER POLLAK, VIDA & FISHER ATTORNEYS
More information555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 Sacramento, California tel fax
meyers nave 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 Sacramento, California 95814 tel 916.556.1531 fax 916.556.1516 www.meyersnave.com Ruthann G. Ziegler rziegler@meyersnave.com Via Federal Express Overnight Mail
More informationRecent Developments, Defenses, And Strategies In Brown Act Litigation 2017 City Attorneys Spring Conference
Recent Developments, Defenses, And Strategies In Brown Act Litigation 2017 City Attorneys Spring Conference Presented by: Thomas B. Brown Stephen A. McEwen Presentation Overview Recent Developments Brown
More informationDecember 17, (Third District Court of Appeal Case No. C066996)
REMY I MOOSE I MANLEY LLP Whitman F. Manley wma nley@rmmenvirolaw.com The Honorable William J. Murray The Honorable Vance W. Raye The Honorable Harry E. Hull California Court of A peal, Third Appellate
More informationJOHN TEIXEIRA, et al., Appellants, vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Appellees. Northern District of California REHEARING EN BANG
Case: 13-17132, 07/27/2016, ID: 10065825, DktEntry: 81, Page 1 of 26 Appellate Case No.: 13-17132 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN TEIXEIRA, et al., Appellants, vs. COUNTY
More informationCalifornia State Association of Counties
California State Association of Counties ll 00 K Srreet Suite 101 Socromento Colifomic 91814 9163277500 916.441.5107 Honorable Tani Cantil-Sak:auye, Chief Justice California Supreme Court 350 McAllister
More informationCalifornia State Association of Counties
California State Association of Counties March 11, 2010 1100 K Street Suite 101 Sacramento California 95814 Telephone 916.327.7500 Fa0imile 916.441.5507 Honorable Ronald M. George California Supreme Court
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Case No. A132839 ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF THE BAY AREA, f/k/a HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION
More informationColifornio Stote Association of Counties
Colifornio Stote Association of Counties 1100 K Street Suite 101 Socromento (olilornio 95814 Te.'cphone 916.327.7500 916.441.5507 Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice 350 McAllister Street San Francisco,
More informationMarch 16, Via TrueFiling
Whitman F. Manley wmanley@rmmenvirolaw.com Via TrueFiling Hon. Dennis M. Perluss, Presiding Justice Hon. John L. Segal, Associate Justice Hon. Kerry R. Bensinger, Associate Justice California Court of
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case Number S133687 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LINDA SHIRK, ) Court of Appeal ) Case No. D043697 Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) SDSC No. GIC 818294 vs. ) ) VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL ) DISTRICT,
More information555 1i h Street, Suite 1500 Oakland, California tel (510} fax (510}
meyers nave 555 1i h Street, Suite 1500 Oakland, California 94607 tel (510} 808-2000 fax (510} 444-1108 www.meyersnave.com Arthur A. Hartinger Attorney at Law aha rti nger@ meye rsnave.com SUPREME COURT
More informationCITY OF SIMI VALLEY MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REGARDING CITY COUNCIL TERM LIMITS
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY MEMORANDUM AGENDA ITEM NO. 8A August 31, 2015 TO: FROM: City Council Office of the City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REGARDING CITY COUNCIL TERM LIMITS STAFF RECOMMENDATION
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE SUPR E ME COUR T OF THE STAT E OF CALIFORNIA
No. S132972 IN THE SUPR E ME COUR T OF THE STAT E OF CALIFORNIA VINEYARD AREA CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE GROWTH, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Petitioners v. CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, Defendant and Respondent,
More informationJonathan Arvizu v. City of Pasadena Request for Publication Second District Case No.: B Superior Court Case No.: BC550929
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY / CIVIL DIVI S IO N CITY PROSECUTOR March 19, 2018 Associate Justice Lee Smalley Edmons Associate Justice Anne. H. Egerton Pro Tern Justice Brian S. Currey Clerk of Court Second
More informationFiled 3/20/18 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
Filed 3/20/18 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 not certified for publication or ordered
More informationAugust 19, Straass, et al. v. DeSantis, et al. Case No. D Opinion Date: July 31, 2014 Request for Publication
Page 1 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Honorable Judith McConnell, Presiding Justice and the Associate Justices California Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District, Division One Symphony Towers 750 B Street, Suite
More informationc - _: _ April 10, 2012 Re: officials whc)worktogether and combinetheir resources so that they may influence.
- -- 185 I East First Street - Suite 1550 Santa Ana; California 92705-4067 voice 949863 3363- fcjx 949863 3350 c -_: _ Direct No: 9492653412 Our File No 05134-0023 smcewen@bwslawcom April 10, 2012 Via
More information1 LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS FORM
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 1 LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS FORM This form is required for the Legislative Program Committee to consider taking an advocacy position on an issue or legislative item BILL NUMBER: AUTHOR:
More information2d Civ. No. B (Los Angeles Superior Court No. BC466547) COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO
2d Civ. No. B237804 (Los Angeles Superior Court No. BC466547) COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO MIKE MALIN Plaintiff and Respondant, v. MARTIN SINGER et
More informationCACJ CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
November 2, 2017 The Honorable Jorge E. Navarrete Clerk, California Supreme Court Supreme Court of California 455 Golden Gate Ave., Ground Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Please respond to: JOHN T. PHILIPSBORN
More informationCase No. S IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. S239907 IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; COUNTY OF ORANGE; COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; and COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Plaintiffs and Appellants,
More informationThe Wheels of Justice
League of California Cities City Attorneys Department July 18, 2013 Webinar Striking Out the Plaintiff Using the Anti-SLAPP Statute, Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16: Who, What, When, Where, Why
More information1550 LAUREL OWNER S ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff and Petitioner, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent.
B288091 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE 1550 LAUREL OWNER S ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff and Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY
More informationENDEMAN, LINCOLN, TUREK & HEATER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 600 "B" STREET, SUITE 2400 SAN DIEGO, CA December 26, 2012
KENNETH C. TUREK HENRY E. HEATER DAVID SEMELSBERGER JAMES C. ALLEN GEORGE H. KAELIN Ill LINDA B. REICH DAVID M. DAFTARY DONALD R. LINCOLN OF COUNSEL RONALD L. ENDEMAN RETIRED ENDEMAN, LINCOLN, TUREK &
More information~n tl3e ~up~eme ~nu~t n[ the ~niteb ~tate~
~n tl3e ~up~eme ~nu~t n[ the ~niteb ~tate~ CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, INTERNATIONAL CHURCH OF THE FOURSQUARE GOSPEL, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationCase No. B IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE
Case No. B282822 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE YOUTH FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE; SOUTH CENTRAL YOUTH LEADERSHIP COALITION; CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
More informationCivil No. C [Sacramento County Superior Court Case No ] IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Civil No. C070484 [Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2011-80000952] IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT City of Cerritos et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants;
More informationTO 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 informationAttorney for Plaintiff San Diego Police Officers Association SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
MICHAEL A. CONGER, ESQUIRE (State Bar # LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. CONGER San Dieguito Road, Suite -1 Mailing: P.O. Box Rancho Santa Fe, California 0 Telephone: ( -000 Facsimile: ( -0 Attorney for Plaintiff
More informationNos and UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 11-55461 12/22/2011 ID: 8009906 DktEntry: 32 Page: 1 of 16 Nos. 11-55460 and 11-55461 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PACIFIC SHORES PROPERTIES, LLC et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,
More informationmeyers nave A Commitment to Public Law
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 Sacramento, California 95814 tel {916) 556-1531 fax {916) 556-1516 www.meyersnave.com Ruthann G. Ziegler Attorney at Law rziegler@meyersnave.com meyers nave A Commitment to
More informationCase No. S IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN RE CONSERVATORSHIP OF ROY WHITLEY
Case No. S175855 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN RE CONSERVATORSHIP OF ROY WHITLEY NORTH BAY REGIONAL CENTER Respondent, v. VIRGINIA MALDONADO, as Conservator for Roy Whitely Petitioner.
More informationPublic Law Update February 2014
Tan` Public Law Update February 2014 ADD PICTURE Curses, foiled again! COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMS LIMITATIONS ON STANDING TO SUE PUBLIC AGENCIES By Matthew D. Visick, Esq. Of Special Interest PUBLIC LAW...
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D068185
Filed 10/14/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. D068185 (Super.
More informationgold forb I i pma n attorneys
gold forb I i pma n attorneys 1300 Clay Street, Eleventh Floor Oakland, California 94612 510 836-6336 M David Kroot John T. Nagle Polly V. Marshall Lynn Hutchins Koren M. Tiedemann Thomas H. Webber John
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the State of California
In the Supreme Court of the State of California PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE, v. Petitioner, ALEX PADILLA, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State of the State of California, Respondent,
More informationCourt of Appeal No. A COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR
Court of Appeal No. A116389 COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR MICHAEL CHRISTOPH KREUTZER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
More informationApril 1, 2015 CONCLUSIONS
1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 www.cacities.org April 1, 2015 VIA ELECTRONIC AND US MAIL Ms. Anya Binsacca Deputy Attorney General 455 Golden
More informationPeople v. Joseph. Jonathan P. Hobbs. April 12, 2012 VIA FEDEX
Jonathan P. Hobbs 916.321.4500 jhobbs@kmtg.com April 12, 2012 VIA FEEX Honorable Judith Ashmann-Gerst, Associate Justice Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate istrict Ronald Reagan
More informationLate Breaking Report From The Medical Marijuana Committee PENDING FEDERAL LEGISLATION
Late Breaking Report From The Medical Marijuana Committee League of California Cities CITY ATTORNEY s DEPARTMENT PROGRAM 2012 ANNUAL CONFERENCE Wednesday, September 5 Friday, September 7 San Diego Convention
More informationNovember 18, Hamp v. Harrison Patterson O Connor & Kinkead, et al. Case No. D Opinion Date: October 30, 2014 Request for Publication
Page 1 Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District FILED ELECTRONICALLY 11/18/2014 Kevin J. Lane, Clerk By: Scott Busskohl ELECTRONICALLY FILED Honorable Judith McConnell, Presiding Justice and the Associate
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 11/7/06 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX A. J. WRIGHT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, 2d Civil No. B176929 (Super.
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 11/20/17 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE KENNEDY COMMISSION et al., Plaintiffs and
More informationCase No. C IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
Case No. C080685 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT RICHARD STEVENSON and KATY GRIMES, Petitioners and Appellants, vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant and Respondent.
More informationLOCAL CLAIMS FILING REGULATIONS
City Attorneys Department League of California Cities Continuing Education Seminar February 2003 Kevin D. Siegel Anne Q. Pollack Attorneys LOCAL CLAIMS FILING REGULATIONS INTRODUCTION The Tort Claims Act
More informationYour Legal Powers and Obligations
Disclaimer: This paper is provided for general information only and is not offered or intended as legal advice. Readers should seek the advice of an attorney when confronted with legal issues and attorneys
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 7/19/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT et al., v. Plaintiffs and Appellants,
More informationSAMPLE FORM S PETITION FOR REHEARING
SAMPLE FORM S PETITION FOR REHEARING PETITION FOR REHEARING - INSTRUCTIONS After the opinion has been filed in your case, or a request for publication granted or modification of opinion changing judgment,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. MT. SAN JACINTO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Petitioner, v.
Case No. S132251 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MT. SAN JACINTO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Respondent, AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Filed 12/15/10 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE COUNTY OF SONOMA, v. Petitioner, THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY, Respondent;
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
1 1 1 1 0 1 ROBERT G. LOEWY (SBN ) LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT G. LOEWY, P.C. Quail Street Newport Beach, California 0 Phone: () -; Fax: () - Email: rloewy@rloewy.com STEVE MARCHBANKS (SBN ) PREMIER LEGAL CENTER,
More informationPublic Law Update November 2011
Tan` Public Law Update November 2011 Curses, foiled again! Curtailing Vexatious Lawsuits Strategies for Government Entities By Martin Kosla Of Special Interest PUBLIC LAW...4 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW...6 LABOR
More informationKolender v. San Diego County Civil Service Commission (Salenko) (2005)
Kolender v. San Diego County Civil Service Commission (Salenko) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1150, -- Cal.Rptr.3d -- [No. D045266. Fourth Dist., Div. One. Aug. 22, 2005.] WILLIAM B. KOLENDER, as Sheriff, etc.,
More informationTHE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Coordination Proceeding: THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FIDELITY NATIONAL HOME WARRANTY CASES JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION PROCEEDING NO. 4806 NOTICE OF
More informationJAN - 3 2Q17. January 3, 201?
~ ^ - -, g R A N D Donald E.Sobelmon Downey Brand LlP dsobelman@downeybrand.com 455 Market Street, Suite 1500 415.848.4824 Direct San Francisco, CA 94105 415.848.4831 Fax 415.848.4800 Main downeybrand.com
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. DANIELLE GRIJALVA, an individual, and CSFES, a California Corporation
Civ. No. 1)053856 COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE DANIELLE GRIJALVA, an individual, and CSFES, a California Corporation Plaintiffs and Appellants, VS.
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D062951
Filed 3/12/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENTENTE DESIGN, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. D062951 (San Diego County Super. Ct. No.
More informationCITY OF SANTA ROSA CITY COUNCIL MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES BYLAWS
CITY OF SANTA ROSA CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item #10.1 For Council Meeting of: April 16, 2013 TO: SUBJECT: STAFF PRESENTER: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES BYLAWS KATHLEEN
More informationURGENCY ORDINANCE NO O13
URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 2015-O13 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
More informationAttorneys for BERKES CRANE ROBINSON & SEAL, LLP and the class of similarly situated persons SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Michael R. Brown (SBN ) MICHAEL R. BROWN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 0 Main Street Suite 0 Irvine, California Telephone: () - Facsimile: () -01 Email: mbrown@mrbapclaw.com Attorneys for BERKES CRANE ROBINSON
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO
No. E067711 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO MACY S WEST STORES, INC., DBA MACY S, AND MACY S, INC., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
More informationDecember 10, Cohen v. DIRECTV, No. S177734
December 10, 2009 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS LETTER IN OPPOSITION TO DEPUBLICATION REQUEST California Rules of Court, rule 8.1125(b) Honorable Ronald M. George, Chief Justice Honorable Joyce L. Kennard, Associate
More informationOctober 6, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council. THROUGH: Legislative Policy Committee (September 24, 2014)
October 6, 2014 TO: FROM: Honorable Mayor and City Council City Clerk THROUGH: Legislative Policy Committee (September 24, 2014) SUBJECT: DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE WITHIN 30 DAYS
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D061724
Filed 6/19/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, D061724 (San Diego County Super.
More informationOPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
I. INTRODUCTION A former law professor for Plaintiffs attorney once said, "If you have to use the word 'clearly' when arguing a legal position, that usually means that the issue is not clear at all." Defendants
More informationREMY, THOMAS, MOOSE and MANLEY, LLP ATIORNEYS AT LAW
MICIIAF.L II REMY 19 4-2003 Tl A A TIIOMAS OF COUNSEL JAMES G MOOSE WI IlTMAN F MA LEY ANDREA K LEISY TIFFA Y K WRIGHT ABRJ A V TELLER ASHLE T CROCKER REMY, THOMAS, MOOSE and MANLEY, LLP ATIORNEYS AT LAW
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. DIVISION [Number]
Parts in blue print are instructions to user, not to be included in filed document unless so noted. [Parts and references in green font, if any, refer to juvenile proceedings. See Practice Note, this web
More informationCITY ATTORNEY ORIENTATION: League and Department Resources
CITY ATTORNEY ORIENTATION: League and Department Resources League of California Cities City Attorneys Department Spring Conference Silverado Resort, Napa, CA May 7, 2003 by Valerie J. Armento, Esq. President,
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 6/6/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VON BECELAERE VENTURES, LLC, D072620 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES ZENOVIC, (Super.
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (Sacramento) ----
Filed 11/7/06 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- LEILA J. LEVI et al., v. Plaintiffs and Appellants, JACK O CONNELL,
More informationAttorneys for Defendant and Respondent CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP Mark J. Austin (State Bar No. 208880) maustin@rutan.com Emily Webb (State Bar No. 302118) ewebb@rutan.com 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, California 92626-1931
More informationB CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE. LINDA DE ROGATIS, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
B254024 CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE LINDA DE ROGATIS, et al., v. Plaintiffs and Appellants, KAREN MICHELLE SHAINSKY, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL
G051016 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE Harold P. Sturgeon, Plaintiff and Appellant, vs. County of Los Angeles, et al., Defendants and Respondents.
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 9/21/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT EMMA ESPARZA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KAWEAH DELTA DISTRICT HOSPITAL, F071761 (Super.
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HARLEY SEEGERT v. Case No. 37-2017-00016131-CU-MC-CTL P.F. CHANG S CHINA BISTRO, INC., et al. TO: NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
More informationCase M:06-cv VRW Document 160 Filed 02/08/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case M:0-cv-0-VRW Document 0 Filed 0/0/00 Page of 0 0 BRENDAN V. SULLIVAN, JR. JOHN G. KESTER GILBERT O. GREENMAN WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 000 Tel.: (0-000 Fax: (0-0
More informationTitle Do Californians Answer the Call to Serve on a Jury? A Report on California Rates of Jury Service Participation May 2015.
Title Do Californians Answer the Call to Serve on a Jury? A Report on California Rates of Jury Service Participation May 2015 Introduction Jurors play an integral part of the American justice system. Because
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 JOSEPH D. ELFORD (S.B. No. 1 Americans for Safe Access 1 Webster Street, Suite 0 Oakland, CA 1 Telephone: (1 - Fax: ( 1-0 Counsel for Plaintiffs IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
More informationCase4:10-cv CW Document205 Filed11/02/12 Page1 of 6
Case:0-cv-00-CW Document0 Filed/0/ Page of 0 STEPHEN E. HART stephen.hart@fhfa.gov FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY OGC, Eighth Floor Constitution Center 00 th Street, SW Washington, DC 00 (0-0 HOWARD N.
More informationJ. Leah Castella
City Attorney s Department, League of California Cities, July 18, 2013, Webinar HOW TO AVOID OR REDUCE ATTORNEY S FEES AWARDS UNDER CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1021.5. J. Leah Castella lcastella@bwslaw.com
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 JOSEPH D. ELFORD (S.B. NO. 1 Americans for Safe Access 1 Webster Street #0 Oakland, CA 1 Telephone: (1 - Fax: ( -00 Counsel for Plaintiffs IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
More information':.Ji.. zo1'i/p. I?. By S' ANT Ell EWBERRY FILED. v. ' ALAMEDA COUNTY. STEPHANIE STIA VETTI, et al, Case No. RG Plaintiffs,
FILED ALAMEDA COUNTY ':.Ji.. zo1'i/p I?. By S' ANT Ell EWBERRY l SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA I \ 1\\\l\ \\1\l \\\\\\\\\\ lllllll\llllllllllllllllllll - --
More informationJames v. City of Coronado (2003)
James v. City of Coronado (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 905, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 85 [No. D039686. Fourth Dist., Div. One. Jan. 30, 2003.] KEITH JAMES et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF CORONADO et al.,
More informationIN 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 JASON O GRADY, MONISH BHATIA, and KASPER JADE, vs. Petitioners, No. H028579 Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 1-04-CV-032178
More informationBallot Box Planning and Finance Evolving Case Law Regarding the Electorate s Right to Referendum
Ballot Box Planning and Finance Evolving Case Law Regarding the Electorate s Right to Referendum Kevin D. Siegel Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900 Oakland, California 94612
More informationCitation to New Authority (Vetoed Legislation)
Law Offices of Donald Kilmer A Professional Corporation. 1645 Willow Street, Suite 150 San Jose, California 95125 Don@DKLawOffice.com Phone: 408/264-8489 Fax: 408/264-8487 October 16, 2013 Chief Justice
More informationAppeal No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Bradley Berentson, et al. Brian Perryman,
Case: 16-56307, 06/30/2017, ID: 10495042, DktEntry: 36-1, Page 1 of 9 Appeal No. 16-56307 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Bradley Berentson, et al. Brian Perryman, v. Provide
More informationCITY OF OAKLAND OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF OAKLAND OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY PUBLIC LEGAL OPINION TO: FROM: PRESIDENT LARRY REID AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL BARBARA J. PARKER CITY ATTORNEY DATE: MARCH 7, 2018 RE: CITY ATTORNEY S AUTHORITY
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA If you worked for Interstate Distributor Company and held the position title Local Hourly Driver for any period of time from November
More information