Saltonstall v. City of Sacramento, No. C077031 (D3 Nov. 20, 2014)
This is an appeal of a denial of a preliminary injunction in a CEQA case. I’m not touching the merits of a CEQA case with a ten-foot-pole. But the court does deny sanctions to the respondent because the sanctions request failed to comply with Rule of Court 8.276(b)(1). That rule requires a separate motion for sanctions to be filed within ten days of the due date for appellant’s reply brief, along with a declaration supporting the amount of attorneys fees sought. Because the respondent here just requested sanctions in its respondent’s brief, the sanctions request was denied.
Affirmed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We've Moved ....
After a two-year hiatus, 111 North Hill Street has decided to decamp for Substack. Thank you for your readership over the last twelve year...
-
Soto v. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc. , No. B252995 (D2d4, as modified August 20, 2015) Although some law-and-economics attuned federal judges...
-
The Rossdale Grp. v. Walton , No. H043476 (D6 Apr. 15, 2017) This is a weird and kind of narrow opinion about standing that is mostly shap...
No comments:
Post a Comment