Opinion
Case No. C 11-03605 TEH
01-10-2012
SHARON L. ANDERSON (SBN 94814) County Counsel THOMAS L. GEIGER (SBN 199729) Supervising Deputy County Counsel RACHEL H. SOMMOVILLA (SBN 231529) Deputy County Counsel STEPHEN M. SIPTROTH (SBN 252792) Deputy County Counsel Contra Costa County Attorneys for Plaintiff CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
SHARON L. ANDERSON (SBN 94814)
County Counsel
THOMAS L. GEIGER (SBN 199729)
Supervising Deputy County Counsel
RACHEL H. SOMMOVILLA (SBN 231529)
Deputy County Counsel
STEPHEN M. SIPTROTH (SBN 252792)
Deputy County Counsel
Contra Costa County
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Assigned to: Judge Thelton E. Henderso
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
ORDER (Proposed)
(Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 1250.325)
On December 29, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in California Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos, California Supreme Court Case No. S194861. The Matosantos decision largely upholds Assembly Bill 26, which dissolves redevelopment agencies in California, and invalidates Assembly Bill 27 (both enacted as Stats. 2011 1st Ex. Session, 2011-2012, chapters 5-6), which would have provided redevelopment agencies a means of continuing to exist in exchange for payments to the State of California. Pursuant to the Matosantos decision, California redevelopment agencies will be dissolved, effective February 1, 2012, and the responsibility for winding up of the agencies' obligations will be transferred to the successor agency of each redevelopment agency, such as the city or county for which each agency was formed.
Prior to the Matosantos decision, Plaintiff Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency ("Redevelopment Agency") intended to continue its redevelopment activities and projects pursuant to Assembly Bill 27. In response to the Matosantos decision, Redevelopment Agency staff and attorneys are working to determine how the effect of the decision will impact this eminent domain action. Redevelopment Agency staff require additional time to address this unforeseen outcome of the Matosantos case in order to meaningfully inform the Court of how the Redevelopment Agency, or its successor agency, will proceed with this eminent domain action. Plaintiff Redevelopment Agency and Defendant U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("Federal Defendant") therefore request that the Court postpone the January 30, 2012 case management conference for an additional week pursuant to the parties' stipulation.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and requested by Plaintiff Redevelopment Agency and the Federal Defendant, through their respective undersigned attorneys, that the case management conference now set for January 30, 2012 be continued for at least one week to allow time for the Redevelopment Agency to assess the impact of the Matosantos decision on this eminent domain action, thereby enabling the agency's attorneys to advise the Court regarding how the agency or its successor agency will proceed with this action.
For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request that the Court continue the January 30, 2012 case management conference to February 6, 2012, or anytime thereafter.
Respectfully Submitted,
SHARON L. ANDERSON
County Counsel
________________
Stephen M. Siptroth
Deputy County Counsel
Attorneys for Plaintiff Contra Costa County
Redevelopment Agency
MELINDA L. HAAG
United States Attorney
________________
Charles M. O'Connor
Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Defendant United States
Department of Housing and Urban
Development
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED. The case management conference in the above-captioned case is continued to February 6, 2012, at 1:30 P.M. The parties shall file a joint case management conference statement on or before January 30, 2012.
________________
Judge Thelyon E. Henderson
I:\CONDEMN\Active Condemnation Cases\CC Redev v HA\P010612 (Stip to Continue CMC).wpd