VICTORY! REALLY!!!
(Written by kencraw)
WE WON! WE WON! WE WON!
I’ll just quote the whole thing:
On August 26, 2008 the Alameda County Superior Court filed an “Order after Hearing” (Exh. 26) and “Respondents’ Amended Judgment,” which was “effective and enforceable immediately.” (Exh. 25 at 281:10-11.) The following day appellants filed a Notice of Appeal. (Exh. 27.)
In prior briefing respondents represented that if appellants filed their Notice of Appeal and contemplated Petition for a Writ of Supersedeas and Request for an Immediate Stay within two business days they “will continue to take no further action to implement the Southeast Campus Integrated Projects until the Court of Appeal rules on any such immediate stay request.” (Exh. 20 at 246:7-13.) Appellants objected to what they characterized as the respondents’ attempt to substitute a voluntary stay in lieu of a court-ordered stay. (Exh. 24.)
On August 28, 2008 appellants filed a Petition for Writ of Supersedeas, Mandate, Prohibition or Other Appropriate Relief and supporting documents. The petition prays for inter alia an immediate temporary stay of the University’s threatened construction-related activities, an immediate 20-day extension pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (g), and the issuance of a writ of supersedeas.
On September 3, 2008 respondents filed an Opposition to Request for Immediate Stay and to Petition for Writ of Supersedeas, etc. and also moved that we take judicial notice of six volumes of exhibits previously filed in conjunction with an earlier writ petition, California Oak Foundation v. The Regents of the University of California, A122172. By operation of law an automatic 20-day stay goes into effect if “a stay is in effect at the time of filing the notice of appeal.” (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 1094.5, subd. (g).) In the context of this statute, “stay” refers to a judicial stay, not respondents’ promise to refrain from further activities. (Ibid. [“the court in which proceedings under this section are instituted may stay the operation of the administrative order or decision”; “no such stay shall be imposed or continued if the court is satisfied that it is against the public interest.”].)
Because there was no judicial stay in effect when the notice of appeal was filed, the statutory 20-day stay is not in effect. The motion that we take judicial notice, pursuant to Evidence Code sections 459 and 452, subdivision (d)(2) of the six volumes of exhibits previously lodged with this court in conjunction with Case Number A122172 is granted. The petition for a writ of supersedeas, mandate and/or prohibition and the related requests for an immediate stay and a 20-day stay are denied. (McGuiness, P.J., Siggins, J., and Jenkins, J.)
What does this mean? It means it is time to fire up the chainsaws! The University can start cutting anytime.
September 4th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
[…] Jubilation reigns. […]
September 5th, 2008 at 7:15 am
It is about time. I hope the University starts the project NOW. Don’t wait ! The next group of crazy loonies may be decending on the Berkeley campus as we celebrate. Start cutting the trees and make certain we have an army of police there to stop all the crazed hippies who are living nearby. Don’t wait!!!!
September 5th, 2008 at 8:42 am
The article in today’s Chron (granted, it was written by C. Jones) mentioned that Vokler wants to take it to the CA Supreme Court. What are the chances that the CSC will take that case and/or if they will rule to continue the injunction while they consider the merits of the case?
September 5th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Well, while it is technically possible fort he CSC to grant an emergency injunction (note, they can’t “take the case” as the appeal is still in progress. All the appellate court did was refuse to grant an injunction, so construction can start while this fruitless appeal is in progress), it is REALLY unlikely the CSC does so.
Plus, while Volker is off doing that and trying to get the CSC’s attention for what is entirely a local matter and not of state wide significance, there is no injunction in place and the University can do whatever it wants, chainsaw-wise. So, one could imagine (or is dream the right word) that the trees are being cut right now and the entire grove is cut down before the CSC even really thinks about the emergency injunction.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Ken – thanks for your consistent and thorough coverage on this whole ordeal. I believe getting this facility built is paramount to taking Cal football to the next level. Imagine the jump we should see in recruiting considering we currently have some of the worst facilities in D1. Not to even mention Tedford’s contract is somewhat contingent on it being built…
September 5th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Thanks for the clarification on the “take the case” point, Ken. I didn’t realize that the appeal process is still ongoing.
I saw a report on Cal Golden Blogs that chainsaws have been heard in the grove today. I hope so, as it makes no sense for UC to wait any longer to get those people out of the trees.
September 5th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
I saw a breif news sound bite this evening that they were arresting the tree sitters.It also showed a couple of treesf falling to earth I will try and catch the 9PM on ch. 20.