Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/178865925/High-Speed-Rail-Plaintiffs-Reply-Brief-on-remedies-final-pdf
Timestamp: 2014-12-19 08:07:30
Document Index: 338362645

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2704', '§526', '§2704', '§2704', '§526', '§995', '§995', '§2704', '§1']

P. 1High Speed Rail Plaintiffs Reply Brief on remedies - final.pdfHigh Speed Rail Plaintiffs Reply Brief on remedies - final.pdfRatings: (0)|Views: 59
|Likes: 0Published by joejoe48California High Speed Rail.Tos et al. vs. the CHSRAPlaintiff's reply brief to the Authority'sbrief. Hearing set for Nov 8, 2013California High Speed Rail.Tos et al. vs. the CHSRAPlaintiff's reply brief to the Authority'sbrief. Hearing set for Nov 8, 2013More info:Categories:Types, Business/LawPublished by: joejoe48 on Oct 25, 2013Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/178865925/High-Speed-Rail-Plaintiffs-Reply-Brief-on-remedies-final-pdf11/07/2013pdftextoriginal ii
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY BRIEF ONREMEDIESDate: November 8, 2013Time: 9:00 AMDept. 31Judge: Hon. Michael P. Kenny
TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................iii
I. BECAUSE THE AUTHORITY’S APPROVED CONSTRUCTIONCONTRACTS COMMIT BOND FUNDS, RESCINDING THE FUNDINGPLAN WILL HAVE A REAL AND PRACTICAL EFFECT......................................2
A. THE AUTHORITY’S COMMITMENT OF FUNDS TO THE TWOCONTRACTS NECESSARILY COMMITS BOND FUNDS WITHOUTA PROPER SUBSECTION (c) FUNDING PLAN................................................3B. DEFENDANTS’ COMMITMENT OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO THECONTRACT HAS ALSO COMMITTED THE AUTHORITY TOEXPENDING BOND FUNDS BEYOND THE LIMITATIONS OFSUBSECTIONS (g) AND (h) WITHOUT A PROPER SUBSECTION (c)FUNDING PLAN...................................................................................................5C. A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO IN VIOLATION OF THE STATECONSTITUTION IS INVALID REGARDLESS OF THE VALIDITY OFTHE APPROPRIATION UNDER WHICH IT IS MADE.....................................6
II. THE ALTERNATIVE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE AUTHORITY’SVIOLATION OF §2704.08(C) IS PROPER...................................................................7
A. THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGESWASTEFUL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS, INCLUDING FEDERALGRANT FUNDS.....................................................................................................8B. A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER C.C.P. §526A MAY SEEK PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, INCLUDING A TEMPORARYRESTRAINING ORDER, ON THE SAME BASIS AS ANY OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION.............................................................................................9
III. DEFENDANTS MUST SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLY WITH THEPROVISIONS OF §2704.08(c) BEFORE THEY CAN PROCEED TOPREPARING THE UPDATED FUNDING PLAN UNDER §2704.08(d).................10IV. THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE AUTHORITY WILL PROPERLYCOMPLY WITH PROPOSITION 1A’S REQUIREMENTS HASALREADY BEEN OVERCOME..................................................................................12V. ALL OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS SHOULD CONTINUE TO BEINCLUDED IN THE COMPLAINT............................................................................12CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................................13
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCALIFORNIA CASES
Barnett v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 890...........................................................................6
(2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1021.............................10
Cal.Trout v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 187...............................................................9
(1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 334...........................................................9
(1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 545........................................................8
Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors of California, Inc. v. Professional Engineers inCalifornia Government (2007) 42 Cal.4th 578...........................................................................9
County of Del Norte v. City of Crescent City
(1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 965...............................9, 12
(1922) 189 Cal. 343......................................................................6
(2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 902.........................................................................12
(2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 577......................................................13
Signal Oil etc. Co. v. Ashland Oil etc. Co
. (1958) 49 Cal.2d 764................................................10
(1962) 58 Cal.2d 23.......................................................................10
(2003) 30 Cal.4
528..............................................................................................9
Code of Civil Procedure §526a.............................................................................................8, 9, 12Code of Civil Procedure §995......................................................................................................10Code of Civil Procedure §995.220...............................................................................................10Streets & Highways Code §2704.08......................................................................................passim
California Constitution, Article 16 §1........................................................................................4, 5
(1997) 520 U.S. 899..........................................................................................6