Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/168695713/Proposed-Order-on-Remedies-on-Judge-Kenny-s-ruling-in-Tos-Et-Al-vs-California-High-Speed-Rail
Timestamp: 2017-09-22 12:30:57
Document Index: 567675088

Matched Legal Cases: ['§6103', '§2704', '§2704', '§2704', '§2704', '§526', '§2704', '§2704', '§2704', '§2704']

Proposed Order on Remedies on Judge Kenny's ruling in Tos Et Al vs California High Speed Rail | Mandamus | Writ
Description: This is the plaintiff's [ proposed ] order in the Tos Et. Al. vs. California High Speed Rail (Case # 34-2011-00113919 (Sacramento Superior Court).
EXEMPT FROM FEES PER GOVERNMENT CODE §6103
Date: November 8, 2013 Time: 9:00 AM Dept. 31 Judge: Hon. Michael P. Kenny Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and the Court’s order of August 29, 2013, this matter came on regularly for hearing on November 8, 2013 at 9:00 AM. Stuart M. Flashman, Esq. and Michael J. Brady, Esq. appeared on behalf of plaintiffs John Tos, Aaron Fukuda, and County of Kings. Michele Inan, Deputy Attorney General, appeared on behalf of Defendants California High-Speed Rail Authority et al. Raymond L. Carlson of the firm Griswond, LaSalle, Cobb, Dowd & Gin, LLP appeared on behalf of amicus curiae Kings County Water District. Having read and considered the papers submitted by the parties and the argument at hearing, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court rules as follows:
Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of portions of Respondent High-Speed Rail
Authority’s contracts with the California Department of Transportation and with Tudor-PeriniParsons is GRANTED. 2. The Court finds that this Court is in a position to be able to grant real practical
relief in response to plaintiffs’ petition for writ of mandate through issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate ordering Respondent California High-Speed Rail Authority to rescind its approval of its funding plan, approved on November 3, 2011, if that relief is coupled to other remedial actions. The Court further finds that such relief is necessary to defend the voters’ intent in approving Proposition 1A in November 2008. THEREFORE, the Court GRANTS relief to plaintiffs John Tos et al. on their mandamus causes of action as follows: a. A writ of mandate shall issue under seal of the Court directed to Respondent
California High-Speed Rail Authority. The writ shall command Respondent High-Speed Rail Authority to set aside its decisions of November 3, 2011 approving and issuing a funding plan for an initial operating segment of the California High-Speed Rail System. Those decisions are remanded to said Respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the provisions of Proposition 1A, this Court’s Ruling on Submitted Matter of August 16, 2013, and the declarations of this Court contained herein. Within sixty days of the service of said writ, said Respondent shall file a return with the Court demonstrating its compliance; b. Respondent California High-Speed Rail Authority is hereby permanently enjoined
and prohibited from preparing and approving a detailed funding plan as provided for in Streets & Highways Code §2704.08(d) unless and until it has first approved a funding plan under §2704.08(c) that fully complies with the requirements of that subsection to the satisfaction of the Court; [one of the following two alternatives] [c. A writ of mandate shall issue under seal of the Court directed to Respondent
California High-Speed Rail Authority. The writ shall command Respondent High-Speed Rail Authority to set aside its decisions of approving contracts between said Respondent and the California Department of Transportation and Tudor-Perini-Parsons, respectively, for construction and related for on Respondent’s Initial Construction Segment. Those decisions are remanded to said Respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the provisions of Proposition 1A, this Court’s Ruling on Submitted Matter of August 16, 2013, and the
and prohibited from expending, or entering into commitments to expend, any Proposition 1A bond fund towards the construction of the Initial Operating Segment – South, with the exception of those funds authorized under Streets and Highways Code §2704.08(g), until such time as it has fully complied with the provisions of §2704.08(c) and (d) to the Court’s satisfaction;] d. Respondent California High-Speed Rail Authority is temporarily restrained from
expending any of the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds granted to said Respondent and designated for the construction of the Initial Construction Segment of the HighSpeed Rail System until such time as the Court has heard and decided Plaintiffs’ causes of action under Code of Civil Procedure §526a in this case; e. Respondent California High-Speed Rail Authority shall, within thirty days of the
Authority for a corridor or usuable segment thereof in accordance with the provisions of Streets and Highways Code §2704.08(c) must identify the sources of all funds to be invested in the corridor or usable segment thereof and the anticipated time of receipt of those funds based on expected commitments, authorizations, agreements, allocations, or other means, and must certify that, based on reasonable expectations of receiving those funds, Respondent California HighSpeed Rail Authority can complete construction of that corridor or usable segment thereof as proposed in the funding plan;
Authority for a corridor or usable segment thereof in accordance with the provisions of Streets and Highways Code §2704.08(c) must certify that Respondent High-Speed Rail Authority has completed all project level environmental clearances for that corridor or usable segment thereof necessary to proceed to construction of the full corridor or usable segment thereof; iii. The provisions of Streets and Highways Code §2704.08(d), as they would apply
to any corridor or usable segment thereof being considered for construction by Respondent California High-Speed Rail Authority, must be preceded by and based upon a funding plan previously prepared and approved by Respondent California High-Speed Rail Authority for that same corridor or usuable segment thereof pursuant to §2704.08(c) that fully complies with the provisions of that subsection. IT IS SO ORDERED Dated: _______________, 2013 ____________________________ Hon. Michael P. Kenny Judge of the Superior Court
Documents Similar To Proposed Order on Remedies on Judge Kenny's ruling in Tos Et Al vs California High Speed Rail
Eugene C. Gordon, for the Use of Mary C. Roper, Plff. In Err. v. Arthur E. Randle, 189 U.S. 417 (1903)
Wilder v. United States, 10th Cir. (1999)
1. San Diego vs. Montesa (Case)
In Re Antrobus, 563 F.3d 1092, 10th Cir. (2009)
Education Public Duty Case
DUNCAN v. SAMUELS - Document No. 2
Joseph Rainey v., 3rd Cir. (2016)
Mangila v Pangilinan
Conversion of Agri Lands
2010 Significant Cases of SC (1)
Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa V. MANILA RAILROAD
1 and 20 Heirs of Bertuldo vs. Melicor
Hill v. NM Sch For The Deaf, 10th Cir. (1997)
Alton Brown v., 3rd Cir. (2011)
In Re Noah Michael Lohr, 887 F.2d 1080, 4th Cir. (1989)
Matthew Tucker v., 3rd Cir. (2015)
United States v. Boutwell, 84 U.S. 604 (1873)
Joseph Watson V., 3rd Cir. (2012)
Canister Co. v. Leahy, 191 F.2d 255, 3rd Cir. (1951)
Errol Douglas Cain v. William Graf, Warden, Leavenworth Detention Center Corrections Corporation of America Carrol St. Clair, Medical Supervisor, Leavenworth Detention Center R. Bradford English, U.S. Marshall, Western District of Missouri, 161 F.3d 17, 10th Cir. (1998)