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: (510) 622-2100
Fax: (510) 622-2270
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)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?