Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/168693812/Plaintiffs-Opening-Brief-on-Remedies-in-Tos-Et-Al-vs-California-High-Speed-Rail
Timestamp: 2015-10-09 03:39:51
Document Index: 183578107

Matched Legal Cases: ['§6103', '§2704', '§2704', '§526', '§526', '§2704', '§1']

Plaintiffs Opening Brief on Remedies in
Tos Et. Al. vs. California High Speed Rail.
P. 1Plaintiffs Opening Brief on Remedies in
Tos Et. Al. vs. California High Speed Rail.Plaintiffs Opening Brief on Remedies in
Tos Et. Al. vs. California High Speed Rail.Ratings: (0)|Views: 28|Likes: 0Published by joejoe48This is the opening brief in case #34-2011-00113919 (Sacramento Superior Court), wherein the plaintiffs case for remedies under Judge Kenny's ruling of August 16, 2013 is presented.This is the opening brief in case #34-2011-00113919 (Sacramento Superior Court), wherein the plaintiffs case for remedies under Judge Kenny's ruling of August 16, 2013 is presented.More info:Categories:Types, Business/LawPublished by: joejoe48 on Sep 16, 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/168693812/Plaintiffs-Opening-Brief-on-Remedies-in-Tos-Et-Al-vs-California-High-Speed-Rail10/21/2013pdftextoriginal ii
RIEF ON
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930MICHAEL J. BRADY (SBN 40693)1001 MARSHALL STREET, STE. 500Redwood City, CA 94063-2052Telephone (650) 364-8200Facsimile: (650) 780-1701Email:mbrady@rmkb.com LAW OFFICES OF STUART M. FLASHMANSTUART M. FLASHMAN (SBN 148396)5626 Ocean View DriveOakland, CA 94618-1533TEL/FAX (510) 652-5373 EXEMPT FROM FEES PER Email:stu@stuflash.comGOVERNMENT CODE §6103Attorneys for Plaintiffs and PlaintiffsJOHN TOS, AARON FUKUDA,AND COUNTY OF KINGS
JOHN TOS, AARON FUKUDA, and COUNTYOF KINGS,Plaintiffsv.CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL Authority
,Defendants
No. 34-2011-00113919
Judge Assigned for All Purposes:HONORABLE MICHAEL P. KENNYDepartment: 31 (to be handled as writ)
PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING BRIEF ONREMEDIESDate: November 8, 2013Time: 9:00 AMDept. 31Judge: Hon. Michael P. Kenny
TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................
ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................
1I. PROPOSITION 1A LAID OUT A SEQUENTIAL AND LOGICAL SET OFCONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO COMMITTING TO THE EXPENDITURE OFBOND FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND REAL PROPERTY ANDEQUIPMENT ACQUISITION FOR A USABLE SEGMENT............................................1A. A
SERIES OF STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS MUST BE COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLYBEFORE BOND PROCEEDS CAN BE USED TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF A USABLESEGMENT
N DETERMINING THE INTENT OF THE VOTERS IN ENACTING A BOND MEASURE
STANDARD PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY AND CONTRACT INTERPRETATION APPLY
HE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IN
§2704.08(
CONSTITUTE A LOGICALPROGRESSION WHERE EACH STEP REQUIRES PROPER COMPLETION OF ALL THEPRECEDING STEPS
...............................................................................................................3II. RESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO PROPERLY COMPLETE THE INITIALFUNDING PLAN PRECLUDES IT FROM MOVING FORWARD WITH THEREMAINING STEPS IN THE SEQUENCE UNTIL THAT FAILURE HASBEEN CORRECTED...........................................................................................................7III. THE COURT’S REMEDY SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE A PROHIBITORYINJUNCTION AGAINST COMMITTING OR EXPENDING PROPOSITION 1ABOND FUNDS FOR ANY OF THE PURPOSES SET FORTH IN §2704.08(D)UNTIL THE PRECONDITIONS FOR SUCH COMMITMENT/SPENDINGHAVE BEEN MET...............................................................................................................8IV. THE COURT SHOULD PROCEED TO CONSIDER PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMSUNDER THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §526A PORTION OF THECOMPLAINT.....................................................................................................................10
Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation Dist. v. Department Of Water Resources
(2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1163....................................................................................3
Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc
. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1113................................................................3
(2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1153.............................................................5
Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors of California, Inc. v. Professional Engineersin California Government (2007) 42 Cal.4th 578.......................................................................7
In re Marriage of Facter (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 967..................................................................5
Monette-Shaw v. San Francisco Bd. of Supervisors
(2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1210.......................2
(1922) 189 Cal. 343......................................................................2
People v. Park (2013) 56 Cal.4th 782............................................................................................3
People v. Superior Court (2010) 48 Cal.4th 564............................................................................3
(1995) 9 Cal.4th 688..............................................................................................6
(2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 153.............................................................................3
Code of Civil Procedure §526a.......................................................................................................9Streets & Highways Code §2704.08......................................................................................passim
California Constitution, Article 16 §1............................................................................................9
Governor's May 2008-09 Budget Revision....................................................................................5 November 2008 Voter Information Guide......................................................................................6
More From This UserAppointment of Hartnett to lead CalTrainjoejoe48Appointment of Hartnett to lead CalTrainOpinion on Hartnett's appointment as CalTrain CEOjoejoe48Opinion on Hartnett's appointment as CalTrain CEOPetition for Writ of Mandate (Atherton et al vs. CalTrain)joejoe48Petition for Writ of Mandate (Atherton et al vs. CalTrain)Fox Habitat Violationsjoejoe48Fox Habitat ViolationsHSR Private Sector Letters of Interestjoejoe48HSR Private Sector Letters of InterestAuthority Instructs URS 4-30-2014 to revise its report.joejoe48Authority Instructs URS 4-30-2014 to revise its report.William Grindley presentation to committee
4-22-2014joejoe48William Grindley presentation to committee
4-22-2014Memo on Cap and Tradejoejoe48Memo on Cap and TradeReply to Prelim Opp appeals court #C076042joejoe48Reply to Prelim Opp appeals court #C076042Union Pacific Comments 2014 Business Planjoejoe48Union Pacific Comments 2014 Business PlanInappropriate Use of Cap and Tradejoejoe48Inappropriate Use of Cap and TradeTos Et al. response in 3rd district appellate court case C075668 (High Speed Rail)joejoe48Tos Et al. response in 3rd district appellate court case C075668 (High Speed Rail)California High Speed Rail. Judge rules case can proceedjoejoe48California High Speed Rail. Judge rules case can proceedHigh Speed Rail Authority reply brief Feb 10 2014joejoe48High Speed Rail Authority reply brief Feb 10 2014Opponents opposition to petition for writ of mandate in Appellate 3rd district court joejoe48Opponents opposition to petition for writ of mandate in Appellate 3rd district court Supreme Court transfers Governor's Petition in High Speed Rail case to lower courtjoejoe48Supreme Court transfers Governor's Petition in High Speed Rail case to lower courtSinclair Fee Versus Tax Opinionjoejoe48Sinclair Fee Versus Tax OpinionPlaintiff's response in High Speed Rail Law Suit Tos et al joejoe48Plaintiff's response in High Speed Rail Law Suit Tos et al Authority Chair Richard responds to State Senator Andy Vidak (Nov 4 2013)joejoe48Authority Chair Richard responds to State Senator Andy Vidak (Nov 4 2013)California High Speed Rail -- AG objectionsjoejoe48California High Speed Rail -- AG objectionsTranscript of Senator Simitian from July 6.docjoejoe48Transcript of Senator Simitian from July 6.docTOS et al Lawsuit vs. CHSRA .. supp brief P. Jonesjoejoe48TOS et al Lawsuit vs. CHSRA .. supp brief P. JonesHigh Speed Rail Plaintiffs Reply Brief on remedies - final.pdfjoejoe48High Speed Rail Plaintiffs Reply Brief on remedies - final.pdfAttorney General's reply brief in Tos et al vs CHSRAjoejoe48Attorney General's reply brief in Tos et al vs CHSRASupplemental Request for for Judicial Noticejoejoe48Supplemental Request for for Judicial Notice
RecommendedProposed Order on Remedies on Judge Kenny's ruling in Tos Et Al vs California High Speed Railjoejoe48This is the plaintiff's [ proposed ] order in the Tos Et. Al. vs. California ...Supplemental Request for for Judicial Noticejoejoe48This is a Supplemental Request for for Judicial Notice in the Tos Et. Al. vs....California Attorney General brief of August 9 2013joejoe48This brief filed in the Atherton et al. appeal claiming California CEQA is ov...Briefing Schedule Judge Kenny Rulingjoejoe48Trial Hearing Briefing Schedule in the Tos. et. Al. suit against the Californ...A Major Court Rebuke for the California Bullet Trainjoejoe48Ken Orski's Innobrief Vol 24 No12 (with permission)Previous|NextPage 1 of 2Similar to Plaintiffs Opening Brief on Remedies in
Tos Et. Al. vs. California...Proposed Order on Remedies on Judge Kenny's ruling in Tos Et Al vs California High Speed Railjoejoe48Proposed Order on Remedies on Judge Kenny's ruling in Tos Et Al vs California High Speed RailSupplemental Request for for Judicial Noticejoejoe48Supplemental Request for for Judicial NoticeCalifornia Attorney General brief of August 9 2013joejoe48California Attorney General brief of August 9 2013Briefing Schedule Judge Kenny Rulingjoejoe48Briefing Schedule Judge Kenny RulingA Major Court Rebuke for the California Bullet Trainjoejoe48A Major Court Rebuke for the California Bullet Train