LAWSUITS FILED OR PENDING

May 2008

To read this entire item of approximately 2200 words online now in PDF format: Click here to read this item if you are an existing subscriber to this publication. Click here to purchase the full text of this item to read now (price: $25). To subscribe to this publication and immediately access all its archives including this item, select the relevant publication under 'Catalogue' in the left-hand column PLEASE NOTE: to read PDFs on www.argento.com you must be using Version 5 of Acrobat Reader or Adobe Reader. If you have an earlier version you can download the latest free of charge by clicking here

Superior Court Holds Real Party and Respondent Agency Limited to One Peremptory Disqualification between Them—Denies Motions to Consolidate Challenges to ‘Railyard’ Development
Sacramento Citizens Concerned About the Railyards v. City of Sacramento

Following one successful peremptory challenge to the assigned Superior Court Judge by a project developer, a redevelopment agency attempted to bring it’s preemptory challenge for removal from the newly assigned judge. The challenge was denied by the Superior Court as were motions to consolidate the myriad of suits—all involving a proposed development of the “Railyards” in downtown Sacramento. The court found that while the agency and developer may have had adverse interests in the administrative proceedings, such conflicting interests were absent in the court proceedings where petitioners are challenging the agency’s approval of the real party’s project.