Elan and Reverend Oracle v. Santa Cruz County Planning Department et al

Filing 69

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 59 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 9/1/2010. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2010)

Elan and Reverend Oracle v. Santa Cruz County Planning Department et al

Doc. 69

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

**E-Filed 9/1/10**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
1

Case Number C 09-373 JF (PVT) ELAN and REVEREND ORACLE, Plaintiffs, v. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT; TOM BURNS; SANTA CRUZ COUNTY; ELLEN PIRIE; JAN BEAUTZ; NEAL COONERTY; TONY CAMPOS; and MARK W. STONE, Defendants. ORDER1 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Docket No. 59]

Plaintiffs Elan and Reverend Oracle ("Plaintiffs") seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order of May 4, 2010, granting in part and denying in part the motion for summary judgment brought by Defendants Santa Cruz Planning Department, Tom Burns, Santa Cruz County, Ellen Pirie, Jan Beautz, Neal Coonerty, Tony Campos, and Mark Stone ("Defendants"). Plaintiffs contend that the May 4, 2010 order is erroneous with respect to

28

This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.

C a se No. C 09-373 JF (PVT) O R D E R GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR R E C O N S ID E R A T IO N ( JF E X 1 )

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 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

three issues: (1) whether Plaintiffs' claim for damages in connection with a petition for writ of mandate remains viable even though the equitable aspect of the mandamus claim is moot, (2) whether Plaintiffs' evidence is sufficient to show that Defendants' actions were arbitrary and capricious, and (3) whether Plaintiffs' constitutional rights were violated at the time of the initial recordation of the notice of violation. The order is clarified below. Leave to file a motion for reconsideration will be granted in part and denied in part. At the hearing on Defendants' motion for summary judgment, while conceding that the equitable aspects of their mandamus claim are moot, Plaintiffs contended that their claim for damages in connection with the mandamus claim remains viable. Plaintiffs directed the Court's attention to Poschman v. Dumke, 31 Cal. Appl. 3d 932, 943-44 (1973), overruled on other grounds by Armistead v. State Personnel Board, 22 Cal. 3d 198, 204 n.3 (Cal. 1978), in which the appellant claimed that he wrongfully had been denied tenure. Although the plaintiff eventually was granted tenure, the court concluded that "the grant of tenure some 20 months after it should have been granted does not cure loss of additional salary, consideration for promotion, and service benefits that depend upon length of tenure and will be operative throughout appellant's academic career. Appellant's claim for damages in that regard is not moot." At the same hearing, this Court stated that while "the mandamus claims are moot," this "[does not] necessarily dispose[] of Plaintiffs' entitlement to fees and damages." (Tr. 3:10-12.) The Court hereby clarifies its order of May 4, 2010 and notes that Plaintiffs claim for damages in connection with their mandamus claim is not moot. Accordingly, reconsideration of this issue is unnecessary. Plaintiffs' motion for leave otherwise will be granted. Defendants' opposition, which shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages in length, shall be filed on or before September 8, 2010. Plaintiffs' may file a reply on or before September 15, 2010. The Court will notify counsel if it wishes to hear oral argument.

2
C a se No. C 09-373 JF (PVT) O R D E R GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR R E C O N S ID E R A T IO N ( JF E X 1 )

1 2 3 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

IT IS SO ORDERED DATED: 9/1/10 JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge

3
C a se No. C 09-373 JF (PVT) O R D E R GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR R E C O N S ID E R A T IO N ( JF E X 1 )