Wells Fargo Bank, National Association et al v. City of Richmond, California et al

Filing 28

REPLY (re 25 Ex Parte Application RE: SCHEDULING OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION ) filed byCity of Richmond, California, Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC. (Kronland, Scott) (Filed on 8/16/2013)

1 SCOTT A. KRONLAND (SBN 171693)
JONATHAN WEISSGLASS (SBN 185008)
2 ERIC P. BROWN (SBN 284245)
Altshuler Berzon LLP
3
177 Post Street, Suite 300
4 San Francisco, CA 94108
Tel: [phone]
5 Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
6
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
7
8 Attorneys for Defendants City of Richmond and
Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC
9
BRUCE REED GOODMILLER (SBN 121491)
WILLIAM A. FALIK (SBN 53499)
10 City Attorney
100 Tunnel Rd
Berkeley, CA 94705
11 CARLOS A. PRIVAT (SBN 197534)
Assistant City Attorney
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
12 CITY OF RICHMOND
450 Civic Center Plaza
E-mail: [e-mail]
13 Richmond, CA 94804
Telephone: [phone]
Attorney for Defendant
14 Facsimile: [phone]
Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC
E-mail: [e-mail]
15
[e-mail]
16
Attorneys for Defendant City of Richmond
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18
19

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

21 WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, et al.,
22
Plaintiffs,

23
24

Case No. CV-13-3663-CRB
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE
MOTION RE: SCHEDULING OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION

v.

25 CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, a
municipality, and MORTGAGE
26
RESOLUTION PARTNERS LLC,
27
Defendants.
28

Honorable Charles R. Breyer

Reply ISO Ex Parte Motion re: Scheduling of Preliminary Injunction Motion, Case No. CV-13-3663-CRB

1

Plaintiffs do not dispute that the City of Richmond cannot institute an eminent domain

2 action because its City Council has not adopted a resolution of necessity. Plaintiffs rely on the
3 Mayor’s statements but the Mayor is only one vote on the City Council, and a super-majority vote
4 is required to adopt a resolution of necessity.
5

Nonetheless, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should not put off setting a preliminary

6 injunction hearing until such time as the City Council should actually adopt a proposed resolution
7 of necessity, or even until the City gives the required advance notice that the City Council intends
8 to consider a proposed resolution of necessity, because California law has a “quick take”
9 procedure. But the California procedure for “possession before judgment” requires that a lawsuit
10 be filed and a motion be made with at least 60-days advance notice (Cal. Code Civ. Prov.
11 §1255.410(b)), and that, if the property owner opposes the motion, the Court find that “[t]he
12 plaintiff is entitled to take the property by eminent domain”; that full compensation has been
13 deposited; and that the balance of hardships favors the grant of provisional relief. Id.
14 §1255.410(d)(2).
15

In short, the so-called “quick-take” procedure provides no reason a preliminary injunction

16 hearing should be scheduled now when Plaintiffs have not even received notice the City Council
17 intends to consider a resolution of necessity that relates to property in which they claim an interest.
18 Dated: August 16, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

19

/s/ Scott A. Kronland
Scott A. Kronland

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Scott A. Kronland
Jonathan Weissglass
Eric P. Brown
Altshuler Berzon LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
City of Richmond and
Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC
Bruce Reed Goodmiller
Carlos A. Privat
City of Richmond

28
1
Reply ISO Ex Parte Motion re: Scheduling of Preliminary Injunction Motion, Case No. CV-13-3663-CRB

1

Attorneys for Defendant City of Richmond

2

William A. Falik

3

Attorney for Defendant
Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Reply ISO Ex Parte Motion re: Scheduling of Preliminary Injunction Motion, Case No. CV-13-3663-CRB