From a few different sources:
By Will Kane
Daily Cal Staff Writer
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Category: News > City > ourts
California Appellate court in San Francisco said today that it will not issue an injunction banning construction at the site of proposed development near UC Berkeley's Memorial Stadium. The decision by the three-judge panel allows the campus to begin the construction they have been seeking to begin since December 2006. "The petition for (an injunction), mandate and/or prohibition and the related requests for an immediate stay and a 20-day stay are denied," the ruling from the court reads. While the campus could theoretically begin construction at the site this afternoon, Dan Mogulof, the campus's executive director of public affairs, said the campus has yet to decide when construction will begin. Three groups-including the city of Berkeley-sued the university seeking to prevent the construction of a proposed athletic center near the stadium. The case was heard by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Barbara Miller, who issued her final ruling in the case last week. Mogulof said he was ecstatic. "It's a great day," he said. "It took us over 20 months and now two courts have been heard from. We're delighted." When asked to comment, Stephan Volker, an attorney for the California Oak Foundation-one of the two plaintiffs in the appeal case-said he had not yet seen the ruling from the court.
"The petition for a writ of supersedeas, mandate and/or prohibition and the related requests for an immediate stay and a 20-day stay are denied. (McGuiness, P.J., Siggins, J., and Jenkins, J.)"
The following transaction has occurred in:California Oak Foundation et al. v. The Regents of the University of California et al.Case: A122511, 1st District, Division 3 Disposition date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2008-09-04Disposition description: Petition summarily denied by orderDisposition status as of 2008-09-04: Final Notes: On August 26, 2008 the Alameda County Superior Court filed an "Order after Hearing" (Exh. 26) and "Respondents' Amended Judgment," which was "effective and enforceable immediately." (Exh. 25 at 281:10-11.) The following day appellants filed a Notice of Appeal. (Exh. 27.) In prior briefing respondents represented that if appellants filed their Notice of Appeal and contemplated Petition for a Writ of Supersedeas and Request for an Immediate Stay within two business days they "will continue to take no further action to implement the Southeast Campus Integrated Projects until the Court of Appeal rules on any such immediate stay request." (Exh. 20 at 246:7-13.) Appellants objected to what they characterized as the respondents' attempt to substitute a voluntary stay in lieu of a court-ordered stay. (Exh. 24.) On August 28, 2008 appellants filed a Petition for Writ of Supersedeas, Mandate, Prohibition or Other Appropriate Relief and supporting documents. The petition prays for inter alia an immediate temporary stay of the University's threatened construction-related activities, an immediate 20-day extension pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (g), and the issuance of a writ of supersedeas. On September 3, 2008 respondents filed an Opposition to Request for Immediate Stay and to Petition for Writ of Supersedeas, etc. and also moved that we take judicial notice of six volumes of exhibits previously filed in conjunction with an earlier writ petition, California Oak Foundation v. The Regents of the University of California, A122172. By operation of law an automatic 20-day stay goes into effect if "a stay is in effect at the time of filing the notice of appeal." (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 1094.5, subd. (g).) In the context of this statute, "stay" refers to a judicial stay, not respondents' promise to refrain from further activities. (Ibid. ["the court in which proceedings under this section are instituted may stay the operation of the administrative order or decision"; "no such stay shall be imposed or continued if the court is satisfied that it is against the public interest."].) Because there was no judicial stay in effect when the notice of appeal was filed, the statutory 20-day stay is not in effect. The motion that we take judicial notice, pursuant to Evidence Code sections 459 and 452, subdivision (d)(2) of the six volumes of exhibits previously lodged with this court in conjunction with Case Number A122172 is granted. The petition for a writ of supersedeas, mandate and/or prohibition and the related requests for an immediate stay and a 20-day stay are denied. (McGuiness, P.J., Siggins, J., and Jenkins, J.) For more information on this case, go to:
For opinions, go to the following web site: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/opinions.cgi?Courts=A
Court of Appeal opinions are generally available on the web site by 5 p.m. on the disposition date. Unpublished opinions are generally available on the web site by 5 p.m. on the disposition date or by 5 p.m. on the court workday following the disposition date.