3 results for month: 12/2017
California AG Backs City in Fighting Developer’s Lawsuit
The Attorney General's office released the following statement on the filing of the State of California's brief in support of the City of Oakland and Sierra Club/SF Baykeeper's motions seeking dismissal of developer Phil Tagami's lawsuit against the City.
Attorney General Becerra Files Amicus Brief Supporting Oakland’s Ban on Storage and Handling of Coal
SACRAMENTO – California Attorney General Xavier Becerra today filed an amicus brief in support of the City of Oakland’s ordinance prohibiting the storage and handling of coal and petroleum coke at the Bulk Oversized Terminal. The City of ...
Five Environmental Groups File Amicus Brief in Coal Lawsuit
On December 7, Center for Biological Diversity filed an amicus brief on behalf of itself, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, and Communities for a Better Environment, No Coal in Oakland, and West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project in support of the City of Oakland’s and Sierra Club/SF Baykeeper’s motions for summary judgment in the lawsuit brought by developer Phil Tagami to challenge the City's Ordinance banning storage and handling of coal.
CBD issued the following press release:
For Immediate Release, December 7, 2017
Legal Action by Community Groups Defends Oakland's Ban on Coal Storage, Handling
OAKLAND, Calif.— Commun...
City of Oakland, Sierra Club and SF Baykeeper Move to Dismiss Coal Industry’s Lawsuit As Trial Looms
On Tuesday, December 5, the City of Oakland and Sierra Club/S.F. Baykeeper filed two powerful motions calling on U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria to dismiss developer Phil Tagami's lawsuit against the City of Oakland, Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC vs. City of Oakland. The lawsuit is being financed by Bowie Resource Partners, a Kentucky-based coal company with plans to ship tens of millions of tons of Utah coal through Oakland if Tagami's lawsuit is successful.
The defendants' two motions for summary judgment argue that there is no need for a trial in the case because there are no relevant factual disputes to be resolved ...