They’re saying the judgment’s in over on BearInsider

They owe the University money!

This is the greatest moment ever and suddenly no one’s on this blog.

You all suck!

We need you!

What’s this? Did we win? I haven’t read anything yet.

People are saying “they” (the plaintiffs?) owe the UC 85% of their fees (I’m assuming attorney fees and not court costs).

Also, some dude’s saying that the injunction is lifted in a week.

There are several things up right now at Register of Actions. Go there at the Alameda County court website here and type in this number:

RG06301644 (zeros, no os)

Go to Register of Actions, scroll down, go to page 2. Scroll down. Its all there. Read it for yourself. That is what I am about to do myself.

Ok, first things first, there is a rejection letter there about a motion for new trial. Not too much info, but it appears whoever tried to get the new trial did it in the wrong department. Ok.

As to the meat of the Order:

1. Campus officials who made alterations to plan were appropriate. No need to bring in regents.

2. No violation of due process, because a)Cal did everything by the book and b)Petitioners didn’t really specify nature of due process violation.

3. Cal has 30 days to give a supplemental briefing for the grade beam et al, if they want. They don’t need to do a specific valuation of CMS, merely a reasonable one.

4. Injunction is dropped in 7 days. This time period is to give Petitioners chance for appeals court. Fudge tickles!

Judgment:

1. As to CEQA, Petitoners petition denied for ALL save for the events doubling part, which we dropped anyway.

2. As to AP, Petitioners denied for ALL save for Cal has to deal with the law and the grade beam et al stuff, which we dropped anyway.

3. Otherwise, everything denied by Petitioners.

4. Issue Writ that just says if Cal wants to get the above stuff in, it has to do more stuff. Fair enough.

5. Cal gets 85% costs, split 3 ways (Berkeley; PHA; California Oaks Foundation). Noticed motion if want to get fees.

So far as far as I can tell this is a MASSIVE victory for Cal. Huge.

Ok, so now this question becomes important.

There was a lot of talk at the last hearing about the PHA, Oaks being asked to incur $1 mill for every extra month assuming appeal. How does this come into play, and does it come into play even if COB is part of the appeal?

Also, if COB does join the appeal, and we end up winning, do we end up getting awarded damages paid by COB, or is their ‘public entity’ protection from bond keep them safe from that as well?

Word on the street from some dude at BI is that there will be a “closed door” City Council meeting take place on this matter this Thursday at 5. If I can find a link for this, I will, of course, pass it along here.

BPD article. Excerpts:

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Barbara J. Miller issued a judgment that upholds the university’s plans for a four-level gym at the grove site and hit the litigants—including the city and the late City Councilmember Dona Spring—with an order that they pay most of the university’s legal bill.

I like the sly insinuation there that the Cal is going after a dead woman and/or they shouldn’t have to pay because Dona Spring passed away.

Volker said he will be filing an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs he represents within the next few days, though he couldn’t speak for the city or the Panoramic Hill Association.

The appeal has to be filed while the injunction is still in effect to in order to win an automatic 20-day continuation of the injunction, he said.

"It is our belief the judge misread the law and has misapprehended the facts of the case," said Volker.

"The public has a vital interest in preserving the outstanding oak grove, and we believe we will be ultimately vindicated by the courts," he said.

My understanding is that Volker is right here, so we might have to wait longer. I don’t understand, though if Volker and Co. would have to pay the bond or costs for just twenty days if they do that. I’m not sure. It might be delayed by twenty more days, though. :(. We’ll see.

Chron story.

One of the former tree-sitters, Erik Eisenberg, better known by his protest name “Ayr,” said tonight that the tree-sit will continue despite the ruling.

“Our response is the same as it was on day one,” he said. “We’ll leave after the university signs something legally binding to protect the trees in perpetuity.”

So, he’ll accept something legally binding as against Cal, but not against himself and/or the trees? How self-serving!

Note: Not written by Carolyn Jones.

Okanes blurb. Nothing much there.

choppity chop chop chop…

Per Okanes blog, link to article from Tribune.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_9964976?IADID

“The timing of Miller’s decision is highly prejudicial against the petitioners. (Miller) did it in a way that makes it very difficult and inconvenient for us to pursue our legal rights to an appeal,” Buckwald said. “But we are going to do the best we can to get papers in to the appellate court as soon as possible.”

They talk tough for having to post a huge bond assuming COB has any sense of reason.

Twist has done a good job of summarizing everything. He deserves a raise!

On the appeal issues I’m afraid I am not much help here cuz I don’t deal with injunctions related to construction, but my thoughts are as follows:

Generally, the filing of the appeal (“perfecting it”) does NOT operate to change a ruling on an injunction. Instead, the Appellants have to file a separate request called a Motion to Stay Injunction or Motion to Stay Order of Trial Court or something along those lines. In this case, because the injunction will dissolve in 7 days, if there is an appeal, the Appellants are essentially looking at filing an emergency motion to stay b/c they don’t have a lot of time. [Note: certain appeals automatically stay lower court proceedings]. Without engaging in a legal research project, I have to say that is is very difficult to win a request to stay a refusal to continue an injunction. It just does not happen very often and seems very difficult if not downright impossible. I did some research trying to find anything related to an automatic stay for 20 days (based on Volker’s comment) and could not find anything, so I’m not sure if Volker is just blowing smoke on this or not.

And of course there’s the bond issue. Again not my cup of tea, but generally when a party will incur losses related to an appeal and when it won at the trial level, then the appealing party has to obtain a bond in case it loses the appeal.

So Volker may be blowing smoke, or not, but this is a resounding victory for Cal and the football program. Even though more delay is possible, we are on the winning side of any appeal and that in itself is a HUGE victory. It is only a matter of time before the trees come down and before Tedford’s contract is extended (or the buyout increased?) by the groundbreaking.

I think if all of us were asked a few months ago whether we would have taken this ruling (which is now final), on July 22, we would have said “definitely.”

I hope they season that oak and use it in future Big Game bonfires!

"I can only hope that university officials have listened to the many people in this community who have spoken out in favor of the trees for the past two years-a coalition which includes a broad spectrum of Berkeley society-and they will realize the severe and lasting harm that will come of any rash action on their part to cut the trees down while we may still be standing at the courtroom door asking to be heard. Ignoring the wishes of the community like this would be counter to its paramount obligation to the public it serves. If it does so, the University of California will be forever stained in the eyes of many people who have supported it in the past. "

What a joke.