Levin v. City and County of San Francisco

Filing 84

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer responding to 72 Motion for Clarification (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

DANIEL LEVIN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14

No. 3:14-cv-03352-CRB
ORDER RE MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION

v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Defendant.

15

/

16
17

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification (dkt. 72) regarding this

18

Court’s Argument Order (dkt. 70). As all parties are aware, the bench trial scheduled to

19

begin October 6, 2014, will address only the facial challenge to the Ordinance. Hearing

20

Trans. (dkt. 61) at 8–9. The Argument Order instructs the parties that they should come

21

prepared to discuss the legal and factual bases of the Ordinance as a regulatory taking within

22

a facial challenge (dkt. 70). See Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104

23

(1978).

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

Dated: October 3, 2014
CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE