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.
Showing posts with label saltonstall. Show all posts
Showing posts with label saltonstall. Show all posts
Subscribe to:
Posts (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...