Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02323/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02323-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
Cause of Action: 40:258(a) Public Buildings &amp; Property: Land Condemnation

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

EASEMENTS ON 3.2983 ACRES OF

LAND, MORE OR LESS, SITUATED

IN THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, SAN

DIEGO COUNTY, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, CITY OF SAN DIEGO,

GEORGE J. MALLOY, MARIA

MALLOY, AIDA GONZALES, SAN

DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO.,

CENTRE CITY DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION, NRG THERMAL,

LLC, COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC.,

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, HEIRS or

DEVISEES OF FRANK M. PIXLEY,

HEIRS or DEVISEES OF N.

STEINMETZ, HEIRS or DEVISEES OF

JOHN N. KERR, SAN DIEGO MARINA

I, HEIRS or DEVISEES OF THOMAS

LARSON, HEIRS or DEVISEES OF

MICHAEL KEEFE,

Defendants.

3:09-CV-02323-JKS

ORDER

At Docket No. 36 the parties filed a Joint Brief in Response to Court’s Order at Docket No. 

35. In their joint brief, the parties established that the City of San Diego (“the City”) was only

seeking compensation for parcel Nos. 1, 2a, and 2c, and that the compensable interest was

$1,024,883.00. The parties also informed the Court they would be submitting a joint motion for

release of funds in the amount of $1,024,883.00 along with a joint motion for dismissal in

connection with the City’s interest in all six parcels listed in the Complaint. 

The parties have not filed either of these documents, and the City’s Application for

Withdrawal of Deposit of Just Compensation at Docket No. 34 remains pending. Accordingly,

because the City has abandoned its motion at Docket No. 34, the Court will deny it without

Case 3:09-cv-02323-JKS Document 37 Filed 09/29/10 Page 1 of 2
2

prejudice and grant leave to re-file the motion consistent with the parties’ joint brief at Docket No.

36. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the City of San Diego’s EX PARTE MOTION

Application for Withdrawal of Deposit of Just Compensation at Docket No. 34 is DENIED without

prejudice with leave to renew consistent with the parties’ filing at Docket No. 36. Additionally,

based on the parties’ filing at Docket No. 36, should the parties re-file a joint motion for release of

funds, this Court will also expect the parties to file a joint motion for dismissal in connection with

the City’s interest in all six parcels listed in the Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2010.

 /s/ James K. Singleton, Jr. JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR. 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-02323-JKS Document 37 Filed 09/29/10 Page 2 of 2