AgdaPkt 2004-12-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

.� ` LEGAL ADVOCACY FRIEND-OF-THE-COURT FILINGS Leam more about League fiend-of-the-oourt Inverse Condemnation and Valuation action in appellate cases af�eding Califomia cities. A brief summary of the case and thanks to volun- This case involves undeveloped property owned teer writers appear bebw. by a resident, and the at�s alleged duty to maintain a portion of the property as a public street. The trial Absence of Licensure and Recovery court conduded that the city is liable for the fair market value of the property with acoess provided by May a contractor that had a lapse in licensur+e maintenance of a road, as well as the cost of the for a period of worlc r+ec:over fo� any worlc c�mpleted road. The League weighed in on the issues o�F yvhat on a project, or is the contractor just barred from liability a city has to maintain roads that have not been recovering for the period of non-licensure? The adopted irrto the city str�eet system by the goveming court of appeal conduded that the contr•actor was body, and whether a public entity may be ordered to only barred from recovering during the period of pay for the enhanced value of the entire property, noMicensure. The League angued that any ab- rather than simply the cost of the road construction sence of or lapse of licensur�e during work for a associated with the property. Phil Kohn, Clty Attor- public work project barred any recovery for work ney, Laguna Beach, wrote a iriend-of-the-court brief completed. Kimberiy Hall Barlow, Jones & on behalf of the League to the court of appeal. Mayer, wrote a friend-0f-the�ourt brief on behalf of the League to the Califiomia Supneme Court. The name of the case is North Pacfica LLC v. City ofPacifica No. A104951 (1s� Dist.). The name of the case is MW Erectors v. Niedefiauser Omamental and Meta/ Works Limitations to Challenging EIRs Company, Inc. No. S 123328 rev. granted (May 12, 2004), previously puWished at 115 Cal. App. 4ih The League sought publication of a favorable 512, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 351 (Jan. 30, 2004). court of appeal opinion to cities that addresses the scope of review of a supptemental Environmental Attorneys' Fees and the Telecommunications Impact Report (EIR) or similar document prepared � pursuant to court order in a case arising under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In such The United States Supreme Court necently cases where the court has found the EIR prepared for agreed to hear a case involving whether a local a projed to be inadequate under CEQA, but the govemment may be required to pay damages and problem and requir�ed correction ar�e namowy fo- attomeys fiees for violafions of the Telecommunica- cused, the court condudes that the scope of review tions Act of 1996 rela6ng to the sfing of wireless of the revised EIR is limited to the namow scope of the facilities even when good faith efforts to c�mply with r+evision ordered by the court. Jennifer Henning, the statute have been made. The d� court Litigation Counsel, CSAC, wrote a iriend-of-the- denied the availability of atbomeys' fees, and the court letter supporting publication on behalf of the Ninth Circuit reversed. Roy Englert, with League and CSAC to the court of appeal. Robbins Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner & James Horwood, Spiegel � McDiarmid wrote The name of the case is Riverwatch v. Countyof a friend-0f-the-court brief on behalf of the League to San Diego, No. D042430, currently unpublished (4'n the U.S. Supreme Court. Dist. Div. 1, Oct. 25, 2004). The name of the case is Abrams v. City of Ethical Screens from Conflicts of Interest Rancho Pa/os Verdes, 354 F.3d 1094 (g�^ Cir. Aug. 7, 2003), cert. grarrted (U.S. Sep. 28, 2004j (No. 03- A court of appeal concluded that an attomey in a 1601). public agency who is disqualified from �+epresen6ng the city in a public matter does not disqualify the entire Contfnued on PaBe 4 PAGE 4/PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site--www.cacities.org