Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Jerry Sandusky's Wife Tries To Run A Reporter Over

Something Happened, Let's Figure It Out Inside!

I just got an email from the Court saying the Petition denied, I think.  It is long and confusing  Reading it NOW.  Linky!

Help figuring this out, people

 

Ok, I'm trying to figure this out quickly off the top of my head here.  It says the Writ of Supercedes is denied, which is good.  This appears to be because Volker filed the Motion For New Trial in the Trial Court.  This is good, I figure.

But it also says this:

The Order after Hearing also provides that "[t]he preliminary injunction will be dissolved when the judgment takes effect . . . ." (Exh. 13 at 220.) Ordinarily, an order dissolving an injunction is independently appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 904.1, subd. (a)(6).) In this case, however, the companion Judgment never took effect, and, hence, the preliminary injunction is not yet dissolved. Rather, it remains in place, subject to future modification by the trial court, as appropriate.

I don't understand if that means Volker can appeal again to get 20 more days after the Judgement takes effect.  The preliminary injunction, it says, is not yet dissolved.  But it is subject to future modification by the trial court.  Judge Miller has made clear her view that it should have dissolved last week.  So, I don't know what this means, exactly. 

This seems good, but leaves me with more questions about what the timeline is going forward.  Any help?

 

Comment 14 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Cautious optimism here...

Does this mean the the Oaks people got their petition for appeal denied? Because I don’t speak legalese…

In other words, Go Bears!

by royrules22 on Aug 7, 2008 5:24 PM PDT reply actions  

Injunction

Essentially a procedural clusterf—k and it appears the trial court is to blame. She entered a judgment simulatneously with an order that gave UC 30 days to submit a supplemental pleading. The appellate court apparently didn’t think the judgment took effect until the 30 days expired. Because the judgment wasn’t final until after those thirty days, appeal dismissed and injunction remains in place. No indication about how the appellate court views the merits, but otherwise not good. Back to square one in terms of timing. Assuming the motion for a new trial is denied, which it is in 99.999% of cases, a new judgment entered and a new notice of appeal filed and the same process starts again.

by bearlaw on Aug 7, 2008 5:27 PM PDT reply actions  

Praise be to Tedford that he blessed us with a competent lawyer to guide us with intelligent legal insights. Good sir, did you go to Boalt?

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Aug 7, 2008 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

You wound me deep

"Save The Oaks: Overthrow Capitalism" said Dumpster Muffin sanguinely

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Aug 7, 2008 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

They basically say that since there still is stuff going on at the Trial Court level, the Appeal was premature. Volker should have waited until at least August 21 (when the 30 day period for Cal to maybe put the beam back in) would expire. Read this here:

Although one of the three challenged rulings is denominated a “Judgment,” it is clear from the record that there is no final determination of the rights of the parties. As previously noted, the “Judgment” was issued simultaneously with an “Order after Hearing” that describes ongoing proceedings in the trial court. For example, the Order invites the University of California, “at its option, to file a supplemental return within 30 days of the date of this Order” concerning whether three potential alterations to the existing California Memorial Stadium facility need to be addressed in the underlying proceedings. The trial court authorized a supplemental return notwithstanding its conclusion that the University’s June 27, 2008 response demonstrated that it did not intend to pursue the three alterations. The 30-day period within which to file the supplemental return does not expire until August 21, 2008, and appellants’ Motion to Vacate Judgment and For New Trial also remains pending in the trial court. Thus, the scope of relief ordered by the trial court remains uncertain. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of supersedeas, mandate and/or prohibition in First Appellate District Case No. A122172 is denied, and the appeal in First Appellate District Case No. A122249 is dismissed as premature.

I just don’t get the last part. The last part says that the injunction is not dissolved, but that it can be dissolved by the Trial Court. The Trial Court said “Dissolve on July 29.” So, the AP is not giving a new injunction, but not allowing the TC to dissolve her injunction? I’m confused.

"Save The Oaks: Overthrow Capitalism" said Dumpster Muffin sanguinely

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Aug 7, 2008 5:28 PM PDT reply actions  

injustice

I think the injunction will stay at least until Aug 21 and probable 20 more days beyond that. STO and PHA will go into court right away to make sure the trial court grants them the same relief they had before—that the injunction stay in place until they can get their notice of appeal on file/petition for a writ of supersedeas on file. Unless the court modifies the judgment to make it effective immediately (which UC will probably ask them to do) judgment won’t be appealable until Aug 21 and until the motion for a new trial is denied.

by bearlaw on Aug 7, 2008 5:32 PM PDT reply actions  

I predict at least 1 more Court hearing on this. We already have the August 12, 2008 hearing available. Maybe, then, I don’t know. But if the Appeals Court threw it back to Miller. Miller doesn’t seem to care for Volker, so that is good.

Going back to read the Judgement/Order. Order says that it become effective seven days after entry of Judgment. There is a Notice Of Entry Of Judgment filed on 7.24.08. Basically, everybody is saying there is a Final Judgment here, BUT the Appeals Court. I just don’t understand what the situation is. What is the timeline?

I think substantively, this doesn’t really change much of anything. And it allows Judge Miller to see the law of the land re: City of Berkeley Council Agenda (which she apparently wanted to see).

But procedurally I’m confused. OakTown, we need you!

"Save The Oaks: Overthrow Capitalism" said Dumpster Muffin sanguinely

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Aug 7, 2008 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

Except that yesterday the hearing was rescheduled for August 25…

by Finnegan on Aug 7, 2008 6:12 PM PDT reply actions  

Motion For Order Shortening Time?

"Save The Oaks: Overthrow Capitalism" said Dumpster Muffin sanguinely

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Aug 7, 2008 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

Someday this saga will come to an end…I hope it is during my lifetime!

by OskiMonsta on Aug 8, 2008 2:43 AM PDT reply actions  

“Gather around my knees, grandchildren and I will tell you a tale. A tale of last week when the trees FINALLY came down!”

"Save The Oaks: Overthrow Capitalism" said Dumpster Muffin sanguinely

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Aug 8, 2008 6:44 AM PDT up reply actions  

Hey man, it’s not about the trees, it’s about the student-athletes. That’s what I’ll be telling my grandchildren about.

by OskiMonsta on Aug 8, 2008 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

Grandpa Twist, what’s a “stay-dee-uhm?” I heard President Dumpster Muffin say they were evil devices of the fascist capitalist system, and that’s why she destroyed all of them in 2025…

by SonofCalifornia on Aug 8, 2008 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

“Son, shut up and return to the underground salt mines, like President Ayr Jr. told us too”

"Save The Oaks: Overthrow Capitalism" said Dumpster Muffin sanguinely

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Aug 8, 2008 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The California Sports Website that's .....different from all the rest.

GoldenBlogs' FAQ and Community Guidelines

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Avatar700_small
DBD 2.1.12: Memorial Stadium=Happiness

Recent FanPosts

20955_937378249336_2535124_52060718_7603102_n_small
New/Old Traditions for the New/Old Memorial...
Ajoceywcalhatpic_small
DBD 2/10/12: The Day the Interwebz Broke
47081_1264898881265_1793562355_517598_1551191_s_small
Harper/Jorge Giant Cut-Out Heads
Ab_small
DBD 2.9.12 The CGB Cocktail Party
Avinash4_small
DBD 2.8.12 An Important Question
Snoopy1_small
DBD 2.7.2012 Puppies!
Boosmall_small
DBD 2/6/2012: Highlights from Yesterday's Game
Ab_small
DBD 2.3.12 Thank you, DBD!
Cstcst3644_small
DBD 2.2.12 I Am A DBD Originalist

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

More great SB Nation Blogs

Pac-12 On SBN

Pacific Takes (Pac-12)

Pacifictakes-165x74_medium

NORTH

AddictedToQuack: (Oregon)

UW Dawg Pound: (Washington)

CougCenter: (Washington State)

BuildingTheDam: (Oregon State)

Rule Of Tree: (Stanford)

CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: (Cal)

 

SOUTH

BruinsNation: (UCLA)

ConquestChronicles: (USC)

HouseOfSparky: (ASU)

Arizona Desert Swarm: (Arizona)

TheRalphieReport: (Colorado)

Block U: (Utah)


Marshawnthusiasts!

Bear_small ragnarok

Script_cal_small HydroTech

Cal_football_2005_09_16_roll_07_012_small CBKWit

Cstcst3644_small TwistNHook

1262541127_small yellow fever

Avinash4_small Avinash Kunnath

Jahvidtician

Bear__small norcalnick

Monty_in_cal_gear_small Ohio Bear

Giorgiorope_small Berkelium97

Ajoceywcalhatpic_small Kodiak

Mbc_small ManBearCal

Members Of The Follettariat

Sofele20squarecal_stanford2011_small solarise

Rugby_split_small RugbyVet

The Hit Squad

1129748640_small LeonPowe

Atom_small atomsareenough

Basketball_desktop_small CALumbus Bear

Humpty_dance_1_small Cugel