Court costs FINALLY settled
(Written by kencraw)
While the SAHPC case has been over for months now, there has still be a slew of legal wrangling back and forth. There have been no less than 28 new legal motions in the ‘Register of Actions’ for the court case the vast majority of which have been regarding legal costs that each side owes each other. Last Friday the final ruling about court costs was made. Each of the petitioners (the other side) were given 15% of their costs and the respondants (the University) was giving 85% of their costs. That means the following money will change hands:
- California Oak Foundation will pay the University $17,777.04
- Panaramic Hills Association will pay the Universisty $17,808.54
- City of Berkeley will pay the University $17,861.49
Of course the COF has no money and so will not pay. But it at least means that they’ll cease to exist as the organization because they couldn’t do any fund-raising without having to give that money to the University. But the rest of the money will get paid and I think it’s really important, particularly for the PHA as it’ll really discourage future legal action when they’ve got no case. This will no doubt not sit well with them.
Also remember that the appeal is still in progress. While the appellate judge refused to put an injunction in place while the appeal is heard, which allowed the University to move forward with the project in the mean time, the appeal will still be heard and could, in theory at least, halt the project if the appellate court ruled in favor of the Petitioners.
Right now, they’re still in the formative part of the case with the Petitioners being asked to show cause for why the appeal should move forward (a normal part of the process). I’ll give updates when the action gets rolling.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Hi Ken,
Thanks for the update!
Does this mean that The California Oak Foundation has to give up their participation in the appeal? How could they justify not paying the University if they are continuing to pay their lawyers to appeal the ruling?
October 29th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I really have no idea Duke. My guess is that since the lawyer is working pro-bono, that’s the loophole they’ll slip through. But perhaps there are some legal issues here that I’m aware of that’ll hold their feet to the fire.