People of the State of California, ex rel. et al v. Federal Housing Finance Agency et al

Filing 203

JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/16/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
SALLY MAGNANI
Senior Assistant Attorney General
JANILL L. RICHARDS (SBN # 173817)
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor
P.O. Box 70550
Oakland, California 94612-0550
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for People of the State of California, ex
rel. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 10-cv-03084 CW (LB)
ex rel. KAMALA D. HARRIS, ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
Consolidated Case Nos.:
Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

15

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY;
et al.,

16

19

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

Defendants.

17
18

10-cv-03270 CW (LB)
10-cv-03317 CW (LB)
10-cv-04482 CW (LB)

– and consolidated cases –

20
21

This matter, which challenges certain actions taken by Defendants relating to Property

22

Assessed Clean Energy Programs (PACE), originally was filed as four separate actions. All four

23

matters have now been consolidated and, accordingly, the Court enters this single judgment to

24

fully and finally dispose of all claims brought by all Plaintiffs against all Defendants. Plaintiffs in

25

this action are: the People of the State of California, ex rel. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General;

26

the County of Sonoma, the County of Placer, the City of Palm Desert, and the Sierra Club.

27

Defendants in this action are: the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA); Edward J. Demarco,

28

in his capacity as Acting Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency; Federal Home Loan
1
JUDGMENT (Case No. 10-cv-03084 CW (LB) and consolidated cases)

1

Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); Charles E. Haldeman, Jr., in his capacity as Chief

2

Executive Officer of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; Federal National Mortgage

3

Association (Fannie Mae); and Michael J. Williams, in his Capacity as Chief Executive Officer of

4

Federal National Mortgage Association.

5

By stipulation, all claims against Defendants Charles E. Haldeman, Jr. and Michael J.

6

Williams, who were sued in their official capacities as Chief Executive Officers for Fannie Mae

7

and Freddie Mac, were dismissed.

8

The Court hereby enters Judgment in favor of remaining Defendants on the following

9

claims, each of which is dismissed with prejudice, for the reasons stated in the Court’s August 26,

10

2011, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, which is

11

incorporated by reference:

12
13

That FHFA’s actions violated the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment Commerce Clause
(Placer County only);

14

That FHFA’s actions violated the Constitution’s Spending Clause (Placer County only);

15

That Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that under California law, debt obligations

16

created by PACE programs are assessments, not loans (California, Sonoma County and Placer

17

County); and

18

That Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under state law, specifically:

19

That Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s actions constituted unfair business practices under

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (California only);
That Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s actions constituted negligent interference with
prospective economic advantage (Placer County only);
That Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s actions constituted intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage (Placer County only);
That Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s actions constituted intentional interference with
contractual relations (Placer County only); and
That Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s actions constituted interference with prospective
contractual relations (Sonoma County only).
2
JUDGMENT (Case No. 10-cv-03084 CW and related cases)

1

The Court hereby enters Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on the following claim for the

2

reasons stated in the Court’s August 9, 2012, Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary

3

Judgment, and Denying Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, which is

4

incorporated by reference:

5
6

That FHFA failed to comply with required notice and comment procedures set forth in the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

7

The Court declines to rule on the remaining claims, brought against FHFA under the APA

8

and the National Environmental Policy Act, for the reasons stated in the Court’s August 9, 2012

9

Order.

10

FHFA shall complete the notice and comment process ordered by this Court concerning

11

PACE and publish a final rule no later than 210 days from the date of entry of this Judgment.

12

FHFA shall submit to the Court a status report on the progress of its rulemaking by January 18,

13

2013. FHFA may seek a further extension of the deadline if, for good cause shown, FHFA

14

requires additional time to conduct its rulemaking, and FHFA reserves its right to seek a stay of

15

the deadline if the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on its appeal as the deadline approaches.

16

All parties shall bear their own costs.

17

The Court retains jurisdiction of this action as necessary to ensure compliance with this

18
19

Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

10/16/2012
Dated: ___________________

_________________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
Chief Judge
United States District Court

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

JUDGMENT (Case No. 10-cv-03084 CW and related cases)