County of Sonoma v. Federal Housing Finance Agency et al

Filing 175

JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/2/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2012)

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

10-cv-03270 CW (LB)
10-cv-03317 CW (LB)
10-cv-04482 CW (LB)
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

Defendants.

17
18

– and consolidated cases –

19
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 Demarco, in

28

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 Order

10

Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, dated August 25, 2011:

11
12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

County); and

17

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

18

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

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (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).

28
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 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and

3

Denying Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, dated August 9, 2012:

4
5

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

6

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

7

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

8

Order.

9

FHFA shall complete the notice and comment process on its proposed rule concerning

10

PACE and publish a final rule to consummate that process no later than 210 days from the date of

11

entry of this Judgment. FHFA shall submit to the Court a status report on the progress of its

12

rulemaking by January 18, 2013. FHFA may seek a further extension of the deadline if, for good

13

cause shown, FHFA requires additional time to conduct its rulemaking, and FHFA reserves its

14

right to seek a stay of the deadline if the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on its appeal as the deadline

15

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

11/2/2012
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)