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)
Trashing your Neighbors Is Not Speech in the Public Interest
Dubac v. Itkoff , No. B317061 (D2d8 Apr. 19, 2024) This is an ugly beef between n eighbors who dislike each other. A lot. Over a several mon...
-
Pollock v. Superior Court , No. B321229 (D2d1 Jul. 31, 2023) Back in 2019, the Legislature amended Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280 to inc...
-
RSB Vineyards, LLC v. Orsi , No. A143781 (D1d3 Sept. 29, 2017) In this real estate warranty case, the court affirms a summary judgment in ...
No comments:
Post a Comment