Demurrer CHSRA

8/9/2019 Demurrer CHSRA

1/12

ORIGINAL 1

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

E D M U N D G . B R O W N JR. ( l \ - - ,Attorney (General o f California f?lSo7lHOORSEDW n i i A M l r C A R T F R y . / r ***** * * ,Supervising Deputy Attorney Genera l ( 11G E O R G E S.S P A N O S " .. . _ o 2010Deputy Attorney Genera l ^ """A M Y j . W I N ND e p u t y A U o m e y G e i i e ia l p v- L, jdW i tDV_State Ba r N o . 142421 y ^ D E P U T Y C L E R K _1300 1Street, Suite 125 ' 'P.O. B o x 944255Sacramento, C A 9 4244-2550Telephone: (9 16)322-1673Fax: (916)327-2247E-mai l : amy.w inn@doj .c a .govAt to rneys for Defendan ts Ca l i fo rn i a High-SpeedR a i l Author i ty a n d Executive Director M e hd iMorshedS U P E R I O R C O U R T OF THE STATE OF C A L I F O R N I A

C O U N T Y O F S A R A M E N T O1

R U S S E L L J . PETERSON a nd H A L S T E A D Case N o. 34-2010-00069687 .N U R S E R Y IN C . , (D B A R O G E RR E Y N O L D S N U R S E R Y & C A R R I A G E (Formerly S a n M a te o County Superior CourtSTOP), Case No. CIV 486749)Plaintiff, N O T I C E OF H E A R I N G OND EM U R R ER ; D E M U R R E R A N Dv . M E M O R A N D U M OF P OIN TS A N DA UTH OR ITIE S IN SUP P OR T

C A L I F O R N I A H IG H SP E E D R A ILA U T HO RIT Y , E X E C U T IV E D I R E C T O RM E HD I M O R S H ED , P EN I N S U L A Date: M ay 20 , 20 10C O R R I D O R J OIN T P O W E R S B O A R D , Time: 2 :0 0 P .M .C H A IR M A N D O N G A G E , a n d DOE S 1 Dept: 53t h r o ugh 5 In c lus ive , Reservation Number: 1337935Trial Date : TB ADefendants . Action Fi led: Augus t 28, 2009Da te Transferred: Feb ruary 3, 2 0 1 0


2/12

1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 20, 2010 at 2:00 P.M., or as soon thereaf te r3 as the matter m a y b e heard, in Department 53 o f the above-entitled court, located a t 8004 Ninth Street, Sacramento, C a l i f o r n i a , Defendants Ca l i f o rn i a High Speed Rail A u th o r i ty5 ("HSRA") a n d Excutive Director Mehdi Morshed will demur to each a n d every cause o f6 action in the First Amended Complaint o f pla in t i f fs Russell J . Peterson a n d Halstead7 Nursery, Inc.8 This demurrer is supported b y this notice, demurrer a n d memorandum o f points a n d9 authorities in support (served a n d filed herewith), a ll pleadings a n d papers o n file herein

10 (o f which judicial notice is herein sought), matters o f which th e court m a y take j u d i c i a l11 notice, th e arguments o f counsel a n d such other matter a s m a y b e presented in connection12 with th e hearing.1 3 Pursuant to Local Rule 3.04, the court will make a tentative ruling on the14 merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. You may access1 5 and download the court's ruling from the court's website at http://www.saccourt.1 6 ca.gov. If you do not have online access, you may obtain the tentative ruling over the17 telephone by calling (916) 874-8142 and a deputy clerk will read the ruling to you. If18 you wish to request oral argument, you must contact the courtroom clerk at (916)1 9 874-7858 (Department 53) and the opposing party before 4:00 p.m. the court day20 before the hearing. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m.21 on the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.22 Dated: March 6, 2010 Respectfully Sufe^nitted,2 4 B AMYJ.'WINN25 Deputy Attorney GeneralA t t o r n e y for Defendants26 California High-Speed Rail A u t h o r i t yand Executive Director Mehdi Morshed2728


3/12

1 DEMURRER2 De fe n d a n t s H igh Spe e d R a i l A u tho r i ty ("HSRA") a n d E x e cu t ive Di re c to r M e hd i3 M o rshe d de mur to the F ir s t A me n d e d C o mpla in t o f plaint iffs R usse l l J . Pe te rson a nd4 Hals tead N ursery , Inc ., and to each cause of ac t ion conta ined there in , p u r s u a n t t o Co de o f5 C ivi l Procedure ("CCP") sect ion 430 .10 , su bd . (e).6 De fe n da n t s de mur to the dec la ra tory re l ie f cause o f action on the gro un d tha t it fa i l s7 to state a cause of ac t ion aga ins t defendants8 Al though not separately denomina ted , defendants also de mur to the cause of action9 for wa ste , on the groun ds that i t fai ls to s ta te a cause of ac t ion a ga ins t them.

10 De fe n da n t s de mur to the F ir st A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t in its ent i re ty fo r fa i lure to sta te11 a cause of ac t ion a ga in s t them.12 WHEREFORE, De fe n da n t s p ra y a s fol lows:13 1 . Tha t th is dem urrer be sus ta ined without leave to am end a nd14 2. For such other and further re l ie f as the C ourt deem s jus t and pro per .151 6 D a t e d : M a r ch 6, 2010 Respectful ly .Submit ted ,

UA TV"-/ KxTAM Y L^INN18 De puty A t to rn e y G e n e ra lAt torneys fo r De fe n da n t s19 California High-Speed R a i l A uthor i tyand Executive Director M e hd i Morshed202122232425262728


4/12


5/12

1 e lements o f a cause of action fo r wa s te un d e r C C P section 526a a n d tha t dec la ra tory re l ie f2 is "necessary a n d proper" u n d e r th e circumstances. (CCP 1061.) They c a n do ne i ther .3 N o t only is the purported evidence o f de fe n da n t s ' "intent" to ac t i l l e ga l ly s pe c u la t ive4 -and the l ikelihood of any result ing loss to the pub l ic fisc even more so- the l a ws u i t is5 improper because it t respasses upon the discretion of the HSR A to carry ou t its s ta tu tory6 ma n da te to deve lop a n d implement a high speed ra il system. (See, e .g., Publ ic Uti l i t ie s7 Code section 185034.) (Zetterberg v. California State D e p a r t m e n t of Health (1975) 438 Ca l .App.3d 657, 662 and 663 ["It is the preroga t ive of the Leg is la ture to prescr ibe the9 po we rs a n d a u tho ri ty o f a n e xe cu t ive a ge n cy c re a te d to de a l wi th a s pe c i fic p ro b le m . . . .

10 It would violate the doctrine of separat ion of powers if the courts . . . under the guise of11 dec la ra tory re l ie f , mad e pronouncements in [a ] field reserved to legis la t ive or executive12 discretion"].)13 ARGUMENT14 I. LEGAL STANDARD15 A . Demurrer1 6 A de murre r tests th e lega l suff ic iency of the c ha l l e n ge d p le a d in g by r a i s i n g o n l y17 questions of law. (Lopez v. C ity o f O x n a r d ( \ 9 % 9 ) 207 Ca l .A pp .3d 1, 6.) All facts18 pro pe r ly p le a de d a re d e e m ed a d m i t t e d . ( W h it e v. Davis (1975) 1 3 Ca l .Sd 757, 765.) Th e19 gro un ds for the demurrer must appear from th e face of the p l e a d i n g s or from matter20 proper ly subjec t to jud ic ia l not ice . (CC P sec tion 430 .30 , subd. (a ). ) D efend an ts accept ,21 for purposes of this demu rrer , the fac tua l a l lega t ions of the Firs t A men de d C omp la in t a s22 true.3

23 B . Declaratory Rel ief24 A court has broad d iscre t ion in de te rmining whether or not to ente r ta in a n ac t ion for25 dec la ra tory re l ie f; it s dec is ion is reviewable on a ppe a l fo r a b us e of discre t ion . (M eyer v.26 3 i t should be noted that the FAC does not al lege that defendants intend to violate theT R A C K A G E A G R E E M E N T; it alleges only that there is "evidence" to that effect. (See n. 1,27 supra . ) HSRA does not challenge the authenticity of the Exhibits to the FAC for purposes of thisdemurrer but interpretation of those documen ts is a matter for the Court. See note 4, infra.


6/12

1 Sprint Spectrum (2009) 45 Cal .4th 634, 647 [denying declaratory rel ief to class of2 plaint iffs chal lenging contractua l p rov is ions in cel l phone service agreements] .)3 C od e of Civi l Procedure section 1060, which provides that a cour t "may ma kea b ind ing d eclara t ion" of a l i t igant ' s r ights or du t ies must be read together with4 section 1061 , which states: "The court ma y refuse [ to grant d eclara tory re l i ef ]in any case where i ts declaration or determination is not necessary or proper at5 the time under a l l the circumstances."6 (Id., emphasis in original . A ccord Silva v. City a nd C ou nty of San Francisco (1948) 877 Cal .App.2d 784, 789 [refusing to enter tain declaratory rel ief action to value property in8 future condemnation proceeding]; and Trovers v. Loud en (1967) 254 Ca l .App.2d 926,9 932 ["Undeserving cases should be d isposed of in a summary ma nner , as upon

10 demurrer"].)11 Declaratory rel ief actions are l imited to "cases of actual controversy." (CCP section12 1060.) "The controversy m ust be of a character which ad mits of specific and conclus ive13 rel ief by judgment wi th in th e field of ju d i c i a l d e te r m i na t i on , a s dis t inguished from a n14 ad visory opinion upon a pa r ticular or hypothetical s tate of facts ." (Zetterberg, 4315 Cal .App.3d at p . 661.) Disputes may not be "abstract or academic." (Conner ly v.16 Schwarzenegger (2007 ) 146 Ca l .App.4th 739, 746, quoting N ewland v. Kizer (1989) 20917 Cal .App.3d 647, 657; and see Fiske v. Gillespie (1988) 200 Cal .App.3d 1243, 124718 [discussing "the difficulty of render ing an op inion in a factua l vacuum"].)19 C , Waste ( C o d e of Civi l P r o c e d u r e Section 5 26a)20 Code of Civi l Procedure section 526a provides that:21 An action to obta in a judgm ent , res t r a ining and prevent ing any i l lega lexpenditure of, waste of, or injury to, the estate, funds , or other property of a22 county, town, city or ci ty a nd county o f the state, may be ma inta ine d ag ain sta ny officer thereof, or any agent, or other person, acting in its behalf , either b y23 a citizen resident therein, or by a corporation, who is assessed for and is l i ableto pay, or , wi th in one yea r before the commen cement of the a ction, has pa id , a24 ta x therein.0 C^ Case law establ ishes that a waste cause of action may be brought aga ins t any26 governmental enti ty, including the State (Los Altos Property Owners Association v.27 Hutcheon (1977) 69 Cal .App.3d 22, 26), and that a taxpayer may seek declaratory,28 // /


7/12

1 a s well a s injuncitve, relief (Gates v . Caliafornia Gambling Control Commission2 (2007) 1 54 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1308).

In order to state a waste cause o f action, p l a i n t i f f must allege "a n illegal o r w a s t e f u lexpenditure of public f u n d s or damage to public property." (Waste Management of

5 Alameda County, Inc. v. County ofAlameda (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1240.) Ina d d i t i o n , t he requested relief m a y n o t "trespass into th e domain o f legislative o r executivediscretion." (Harman v. City and County of San Francisco (1972) 7 Cal.3d 150, 161.)g To hold otherwise would invite constant harassment o f city a n d county officers9 b y disgruntled citizens a n d could seriously hamper o u r representative form o fgovernment.

10 (Daily Journal Corporation v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1558.)F i n a l l y , "[a] taxpayer waste cause of action will not lie where thechallenged

12 governmental action is legal." (In re Red Light Photo Enforcement Cases (2008) 163Cal.App.4th 1314, 1326.) Fo r instance, should th e State decide to take th e property a tissue v ia eminent domain, it would b e acting legally b u t outside th e terms of the

15 TRACKAGE AGREEMENT; no waste cause of action would lie. (Cf. Prayer of FAC at16 P - 8 . ) 417 II. PLAINTIFFS' "EVIDENCE" OF DEFENDANTS' INTENT TO ACT ILLEGALLY IS1 g SPECULATIVE AND CONTRADICTORY; IT DOES NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OFACTION FOR WASTE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF IS IMPROPER19 Pla in t i f fs suit is predicated on the assumptions that 1 ) defendants will breach (o r20 cause a breach of) the TRACKAGE AGREEMENT (FAC at pars. 8, 10 and 12 and 13),1l 2) that UPRR will enforce its rights under the TRACKAGE AGREEMENT (FAC at par.97 12), 3) that defendants will defend their illegal conduct (FAC a t par. 6 ) a n d 3 ) that th is23 wil l result in waste o f public f u n d s because state a n d local entities will expend resources24 unsuccessfu l ly litigating and/or will waste resources o n construction activities that w i l l b e25 negated b y a subsequent legal determination that construction w a s i l l e g a l without UPRR's26 4 Plaintiffs ask for a declara t ion that no "construction [be] undertaken related to the27 project on the ROW,unless and unti l the express written consent of UPRR has been obta ined . . ."This is pla in ly improper .


8/12

1 prior consent (FAC a t pa rs . 8 and 14). These a ssumpt ions a re specula t ive . (Cf . W as te2 M ana gement ofAlam eda County , Inc. v . Co un ty o fA la me da (20 0 0 ) 79 Ca l .A pp .4 th 1 223 ,3 1240 ["Genera l a l lega t ions , innuendo, a nd lega l conclus ions a re not suf f ic ien t" to s ta te a4 waste cause of action].) Firs t , agency actions "come before the court with a presumpt ion5 of correctness a nd regularity." (California Associat ion of Nursing Homes, Inc. v.6 W ill iams (1970) 4 C al.Ap p.3d 800, 810, [cit ing Eviden ce Co de section 664].) Second ,7 p la in t i f f s ' "evidence" of defendants ' " imminent in tent" to breach th e T R A C K A G E8 A G R E EM E N T d o e s n o t bear scrut iny .9 Plaintiffs a s se rt tha t a M e mo ra n du m o f Un de rs t a n d in g ("MOU") (Ex. B to FAC)

1 0 entered in to be tween defend ants cons t itu tes "evidence" of their intent to breach the11 T R A C K A G E A G R E EM E N T b e ca u s e t he M O U fa i ls to ment ion UPRR's r ights in the12 ROW (FAC a t pa r . 12 , pp . 6 :23-7:08 and par . 10 , pp . 4 :24-5:01) . This in te rpre ta t ion is13 stra ined, to say the least . The M OU "establishes an ini t ia l o rga n iza t io n a l f r a m ewo rk14 whereby CHSRA and PCJPB [defendants ] engage as pa r tners in the p lanning, des ign and15 construction o f improvements in the Ca l tr a in R a i l Co r r ido r ." (M OU, Ex. B at p. 2, Section16 1 ["Purpose of Agreement"].) The M OU is prelim ina ry in na ture, "an agreem ent to a gree"17 (FAC at par. 10 , p. 4:21-24); there is no reason for i t to add ress UPRR's contrac tua l18 rights .19 In fact, th e evidence cited in the FAC contradicts pla in t i f fs ' a l l e ga t io n s of an20 "imminent" breach of the TRA CK AG E AG REEM ENT. Exhibi t C to the FAC , a le t te r21 from UPRR which pla in t i f f s hold up as evidence of .defendants ' kn o wle dge o f UPRR's22 "s trong reserva t ions . . . concerning the contempla ted ac t iv i ties of the de fend an ts" (FAC a t23 par . 12 , p . 7:01-03), ends with th e fo l lowing sentence: "Un ion Pa cific is conf ident tha t i ts24 concerns will b e ful ly addressed a n d mitigated by the A utho r i ty and t h e FRA [Federa l25 R a i l ro a d A dmin is t ra t io n ] du r in g the EIR/EIS [Environmenta l Impact R eport /Env ironme n-26 ta l Impact Statement] process." (Ex. C. to F A C.)527 5 It is appropriate fo r this Court to interpret th e Exhibits to the FAC on demurrer unlessplaint if fs ascribe a special meaning to the quoted terms. S ee Fremont Indemni ty Co. v . F re mont( c o n t i n u e d . . . )


9/12

1 Pla in t i f fs seek a n a d v i s o ry o p i n i o n u n d e r a hy po t he t i c a l se t of fac t s which they hav e2 fa i led to demo nst ra te i s ever l ike ly to occur . (C f . Meyer, supra , 45 Ca l .4 th a t p . 648 ,3 sus t a in in g d emu rrer to dec la ra tory re l ief ac t ion in s t i tu ted to de te rmi ne the e n f o r ce a b i l i t y4 of cer t a in cont rac tua l provis ions because " [n]o d ispute has a r i s e n t ha t w o u l d c a us e t he se5 r e m e d i a l p r o v i s i o n s t o c o m e i n t o play.") N o w a s t e c l a i m i s s ta t e d a n d de c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f i s6 ne i ther necessary n o r proper under these c i rcumstances .7 III. EVEN IF P L AIN T IFF S C O U L D ES T AB L IS H T H AT A B R E A C H OF THET R A C K A G EA G R E E M E N T W E R E I M M I N E N T , T H EY C A N N O T S HO W T H A T T H E P UB L I C F IS C8 W O U L D S UF FE R T H ER E B Y ; A W A S T E C A U S E OF A C T IO N W IL L NOT LIE9 Pla in t i f fs contend tha t , should d efend an ts cont rac t to cons t ruc t a h igh speed r a i l

10 fac i l i ty wi thout UPRR's c on s e nt , a n d i n v i o l a ti o n o f th e TR A C K A G E A G R E E E M E N T , i t11 w o u l d "expose the proper ty and f u n d s of the count ies and the Sta te to leg a l ac t ion and12 waste of a l l publ ic resources devoted to p l a n n i n g a n d construct ion on the R O W ." ( FA C a t13 pa r . 8 , p. 4:08-09.) Thus, they ask "that the Cour t dec la re the r ights and obl iga t ions of the14 pa r t i e s to the T R A C K A G E A G R E E M E N T w i t h r es p ec t to the cons t ruc t ion o f high speed15 r a i l o ver t he R O W s o t ha t t he i m m i n e n t da m a ge t o pub l i c p r o pe r t y a n d a c o r r e s po n d i n g16 w a s t e o f pub l i c f un ds c a n b e a vo i de d . " ( F AC a t pa r . 8 , p . 4 :0 9 - 1 2 . . )17 Even i f pla in t i f fs could es t ab l i sh , which they hav e not , tha t a breach of the18 TRA C K AG E AG RE E M E NT w e r e i m m i n e n t , t he y c o u l d st il l n o t a l l e ge , e xc ep t a s a1 9 remo te hypothet ica l , tha t the pu bl ic f isc wo uld suffer a s a r e s u l t . Thus t he y c a n n o t s t a t e20 a n e s s en t ia l e l e m e n t o f t he i r w a s t e c l a i m . ( W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t , s up r a , 7 9 C a l . A pp . 4 t h a t p21 1240. )22 Cont rac t s a re b r e a c he d e ve r y da y but i t is r e l a t i ve l y r a r e fo r lega l ac t ion a n d r e s u l t i n g23 d a m a g e s to ensue . Par t ies re -negot ia te a n d po s i ti o n s c ha n ge du r i n g n e go t i a t i o n s . ( C f .24 R o w l a n d School District v. State Board ofEducation (1968) 264 C a l . App . 2 d 58 9 , 59525 ( . . . c o n t i n ue d)G e n e r a l Co rpora t ion (2007) 1 48 C a l . App . 4 t h97, 1 18 (discussing "the rule that if the pla int i ff26 fails to al lege a docum ent a t t ached to the compla in t has a specia l meaning, a court rul ing on ademurrer will interpret the document on its face to determine as a ma t ter of law whether it is27 reasona bly suscept ib le of an interpretation that would support a cause of act ion") (citing Beck vAmer ican Health G roup, Int l . (1989) 21 1 Cal .App .3d 1555, 1561).28


10/12

1 ["the uncerta inties of the future m a y b e t a ke n in to c o n s ide ra t io n by a court a sked to2 de c la re the r igh ts in q ue s t io n . . . a n d a d e n ia l o f a de c l a r a to ry jud gm e n t b e a p ro pe r3 exercise of the court's discretion"].) M a n y fa c to r s c a n affect contrac t neg ot ia t ion s ,4 in c lud in g , whe the r or not on e of the other contrac ting p ar t ies is in b re a c h , th e f i n a n c i a l5 whe re wi tha l of the contrac t ing par t ies , th e ac t ions of th ird par t ies , chang es in l a w, and t he6 a va i l a b i l i t y o f extra -contrac tua l remedies . The possibility of a future l awsu i t tha t might7 resul t in d a m a g e s to the Sta te does n o t support a was te cause o f ac t ion . (Cf . In re Red8 Light Photo E n fo rc e me n t Cases (2008) 1 63 C a l .Ap p.4th 1314, 1326 ["absurd9 consequences would resul t if t a x pa y e rs c o u ld re a d i ly get the courts to en jo in

1 0 go ve rn me n ta l a ge n c ie s from s p e n d i n g a n y m o n e y in connect ion with a n y pro je c t or11 pro gra m tha t migh t a rgua b ly in vo lve a c o mpo n e n t tha t wa s in c o n s i s t e n t wi th th e law"].)12 IV. THE D E C L A R A T I O N PLAINTIFFS SEEK IMPERMISSIBLY INTERFERES WITH

THE HSRA'S A D M I N IS T R A T I V E D I S C R E T I O N TO C A R R Y OUT ITS S T A T U T O R Y1 3 M A N D A T E141 5 In Pub l ic Ut i l i ties Cod e sec tion 155034 th e Legis la ture expl ic i t ly author ized th e16 HSRA, amon g o ther th ings , to :17 [c]onduct eng ineer ing a nd other s tudies re la ted to the selection a n d a cqu i s i t i o no f r ights -of-way . . . .[s]elect a proposed . . . route . . . [and] [e]nter into18 contrac ts with pu bl ic a n d priva te ent i t ies for the pre pa ra t io n of the p la n [ fo r ahigh speed ra i l sys tem].20 (Publ ic Ut i l i ties C ode sec tion 185034, subds . [1 ], [5] and [6]. ) This pro vis io n shows tha t21 the Le g is la tu re in t e n de d tha t th e H SR A e x erci s e c o n s ide ra b le d i s cre t io n in pe r f o r m i n g its22 s ta tu tory du t ies . (C f . Sklar v. Franchise Ta x Board (1986) 185 Ca l .App.3d 616, 62323 [breadth of s ta tu tory language a n d legis la t ive s i lence as to the m e t h o d s by whic h a n24 agen cy should exerc ise its discre t ion to purs ue a pa r t ic u l a r s t a tu to ry go a l "n e c e s s a r i ly25 imports . . . d iscre t ion in se lec t ing a nd taking ad minis t ra t ive ac t ion pur sua nt to the26 statutes"]; and cf. Lucas v . Santa Maria Public A i r p o r t District (1 9 9 5) 39 Ca l .A pp .4 th27 1017, 1027 [de te rmina t ion a s to which contrac tua l opt ion to pursu e " is a d ec is ion which28 l ies within the sound discretion of the agency"].) "A court may not interfere with s ta te


11/12

1 off icia ls in the exercise of their discretio na ry acts." (Elliott v. Superior Court (1960) 1802 Cal.App.2d 894, 897.)3 The principle that courts will not interfere with agency discretion rests on the4 separa t ion o f powers doc tr ine . (Zetterberg, 43 Ca l .A pp .3d a t p . 663.) In a dm i n i s t e r i n g5 and negotia t ing contracts for a high speed r a i l sys tem, HSR A, p ursu an t to the de leg a ted6 au thority of Pub lic Util i t ies C ode section 185034, enga ges in legis la t ive acts . "[J]ud icia l7 power rela t ive to legis la t ive acts is severely circumscribed." (Sklar, 1 85 Ca l .A pp .3d a t p .8 624.)9 It is the preroga t ive of the Legis la ture to prescribe the powers a nd author i ty ofa n executive agency created to dea l with a s p e ci fi c p u b l i c p r o b le m . . . . The10 manner in which this authority is exercised is a matter of administra t ive

discretion. The wisdom o r effectiveness of the exercise o f e i ther legis la t ive or11 adminis t ra t ive d iscre t ion is j udge d e s s e n t i a l ly by the polit ical process .12 In short , the ju d icia l branch of government is not the overseer of the o ther two.13 (Zetterberg, 43 Ca l .App .3d a t p . 662.)14 CONCLUSION1 5 For a l l the foregoing reasons , HSRA asks tha t this Court sus ta in its de murre r to the1 6 F irs t A me n de d Co mpla in t wi tho u t l ea ve to a me n d .17 Da te d : M a rch 6, 2 0 1 01 8 "1 9 . . De puty A t to rn e y G e n e ra l20 Attorneys fo r D efendan t sCalifornia High-Speed R a i l Aut ho r i t y21 SA2009102055/10536550.doc22232425262728

10

Respect ful ly Submit ted ,


12/12

DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAILCase Name: Peterson, et a l . vs . Cal i fo rn ia High Speed R a i l Au t h o r i t y , et a l .Sacramento Co unty Super ior Court Case N o.: 34-2010 -00069687I declare:I am employed in the Office of the A ttorney G eneral, w hich is the office of a member of theCal ifornia State B ar, at which member's direction this service is mad e. I am 18 yea rs of age orolder and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with th e business practice a t the Office of theAttorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the UnitedStates Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspond ence placed in the internalmail collection system at the Office of the Attorney G eneral is deposited w ith the Un ited Sta tesPostal Service that same day in the ordina ry course of business .O n M a r ch 8, 2010 ,1 se rved th e attached NOTICE OF H E A R I N G ON DEMURRER;DEMURRER A N D M E M O R A N D UM OF POINTS A N D AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORTby placing a t rue copy thereof enclosed in a sea led envelope with postage thereon fully p r e p a i d ,in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney Genera l a t 1300 I Street, Suite125, P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, C A 94244-2550, add ressed as follows:M ichae l J . Brady Zachary Tyson1001 M arshal l Street, Suite 300 800 W est El C amino Rea l , Suite 180Red wood Ci ty , CA 94063 M ounta in V iew, CA 94040Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney fo r PlaintiffsK i m o n M a n o li u sAd a m H o fm a n nHanson Bridgett L L P425 M arket Street, 26th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94105-2173Attorneys fo r Defendant PeninsulaCo rr idor Joint Powers B oard

I declare under penal ty of perjury u n d e r th e laws of the State o f Cal i fo rn ia th e fo rego ing is t rueand correct a nd that this declara t ion wa s executed on M arch 8, 2010, a t Sa cramento, C al ifornia .c-wz _ P. VAA/h

S A 2 0 0 9 I 0 2 0 5 510542395 doc_eclarant Signature

Demurrer CHSRA

Documents

Transcript of Demurrer CHSRA