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

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.

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.

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.

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