Redevelopment Agency of the City of Stockton v. Burlington Northern, et al

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 12/7/11: Railroads' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

JOHN F. BARG (SBN 60230; [e-mail])
R. MORGAN GILHULY (SBN 133659; [e-mail])
DONALD E. SOBELMAN (SBN 184028; [e-mail])
ESTIE M. KUS (SBN 239523; [e-mail])
BARG COFFIN LEWIS & TRAPP, LLP
350 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94104-1435
Telephone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, sued herein as BURLINGTON
NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY CORPORATION,
and UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF STOCKTON, a public body,
corporate and politic,

14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:10-CV-00634-JAM-JFM
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE
OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA
FE RAILWAY CORPORATION; UNION
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY; and
DOES 1 through 100,

Date:
Time:
Location:
Judge:

December 7, 2011
9:30 a.m.
Courtroom 6
Hon. John A. Mendez

18
Defendants.
19
20

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

21
22

The motion for summary judgment of Defendants BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY and

23

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY (“the Railroads”) came on regularly for hearing on

24

December 7, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6 of the United States District Court for the Eastern

25

District of California, Sacramento Division, before the Honorable John A. Mendez. Plaintiff was

26

represented by the law firm of Brown & Winters. Defendants were represented by the law firm

27

of Barg Coffin Lewis & Trapp, LLP.

28

Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the admissible evidence, and
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
U.S.D.C. – E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:10-CV-00634-JAM-JFM

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

896212

1

the arguments of counsel, the Court finds, based on the undisputed material facts, that the

2

Railroads are entitled to summary judgment. The decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

3

in Redevelopment Agency of the City of Stockton v. BNSF Ry. Co., 643 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2011),

4

and this Court’s judgment following remand in that case (No. 2:05-CV-02087-DFL-JFM) are

5

dispositive of all claims for relief asserted by plaintiff in the instant action. Moreover, the

6

doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to preclude plaintiff from re-litigating the issues decided in

7

that prior decision and judgment.

8
9

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Railroads’ motion for summary
judgment is GRANTED.

10
11
12

DATED: 12/7/2011

/s/ John A. Mendez
HON. JOHN A. MENDEZ
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
U.S.D.C. – E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:10-CV-00634-JAM-JFM

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

2
896212