Ken Waterhouse et al v. City of Lancaster

Filing 110

JUDGMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, and based on the Plaintiffs Notice of Acceptance of Rule 68 Offer of Settlement by Defendant (Dkt. 106, 106-1, and 106-2), judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs Ken Waterhouse, Sherwood MH P LLC, and Waterhouse Management Corporation and againstdefendant the City of Lancaster by Judge S. James Otero, in favor of Ken Waterhouse, Sherwood MHP LLC against City of Lancaster, Waterhouse Management Corp as follows:1. The Court hereby decla res that: The City of Lancaster municipal Ordinance No. 952, entitled An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lancaster, California Approving the Addition of a Senior Mobilehome ParkOverlay Zone (MHP-S) on the Lancaster Zoning Map at Three Ex istingMobilehome Park Locations, does not apply to, and shall not be enforced against, Sherwood Mobile Home Park, located at 3753 E. Avenue I, Lancaster,California. 2. Plaintiffs, Ken Waterhouse, Sherwood MHP LLC, and WaterhouseManagement Corporation , are the prevailing parties in this litigation. Plaintiffs may bring a motion for an award of attorneys fees and costs under Title 42, United States Code, Section 3613 (c) (2). 3. The Parties have agreed to a settlement of Plaintiffs damage claims. (See Dkt. 106.) (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

DAVID SPANGENBERG, ESQ. (SBN 123864)
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID SPANGENBERG
420 Hudson Street, Suite A
Healdsburg, California 95448
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
LARK L. RITSON, ESQ. (SBN 117614)
LAW OFFICES OF LARK L. RITSON
755 Weston Road
Scotts Valley CA 95066
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]

JS-6

Attorney for Plaintiffs, KEN WATERHOUSE, SHERWOOD
MHP LLC, and WATERHOUSE MANAGEMENT CORP.
WILLIAM LITVAK, ESQ. (SBN 90533)
ERIC MARKUS, ESQ. (SBN 281971)
DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVAK, LLP
11500 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant,
CITY OF LANCASTER

16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19
20

Ken Waterhouse, Sherwood MHP LLC,

21

and Waterhouse Management Corp.,

22
23
24

Plaintiffs,
v.
City of Lancaster,

25
26
27

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

28

[PROPOSED] PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER, Case No. 2:12-CV-00923-SJO

Case No. CV 12 00923-SJO
RULE 54
JUDGMENT OF
DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Pretrial Conference:
Date: May 30, 2013
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Court Room 1, 2nd Floor
Hon. Judge Otero

1

[PROPOSED] RULE 54

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

JUDGMENT OF DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, and based on the Plaintiffs’
Notice of Acceptance of Rule 68 Offer of Settlement by Defendant (Dkt. 106,
106-1, and 106-2), judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs Ken Waterhouse,
Sherwood MHP LLC, and Waterhouse Management Corporation and against
defendant the City of Lancaster as follows:
1.

The Court hereby declares that: The City of Lancaster municipal

Ordinance No. 952, entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Lancaster, California Approving the Addition of a Senior Mobilehome Park
Overlay Zone (MHP-S) on the Lancaster Zoning Map at Three Existing
Mobilehome Park Locations,” does not apply to, and shall not be enforced against,
Sherwood Mobile Home Park, located at 3753 E. Avenue I, Lancaster,
California. A true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 952 is attached to this
Judgment as Exhibit ‘A.’
2.

Plaintiffs, Ken Waterhouse, Sherwood MHP LLC, and Waterhouse

Management Corporation, are the prevailing parties in this litigation. Plaintiffs
may bring a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under Title 42,
United States Code, Section 3613 (c) (2).
3.

The Parties have agreed to a settlement of Plaintiffs’ damage claims.

(See Dkt. 106.)

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
4/18/13

______________________________
S. JAMES OTERO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

[PROPOSED] PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER, Case No. 2:12-CV-00923-SJO

2

1
2
3

Approved as to form and content:

4
5

_____________________________

6

William Litvak, Esq., Attorney for Defendant.

7
8

______________________________

9

David Spangenberg, Esq., Attorney for Plaintiffs.

10
11

_______________________________

12

Lark L. Ritson, Esq., Attorney for Plaintiffs.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[PROPOSED] PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER, Case No. 2:12-CV-00923-SJO

3