On March 17, 2021 a
Letter,Correspondence
was filed
involving a dispute between
and
for (Writ - Administrative Mandamus)
in the District Court of Sacramento County.
Preview
ROB BONTA State of California
Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
13001 STREET, SUITE 125
P.O. BOX 944255
SACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2550
PubUc: (916)445-9555
Telephone: (916) 210-6504
E-Mail: Laura.RandlesLittle@doj.ca.gov
April 4, 2022
Hon. Steven M. Gevercer
Gordon D. Schaber Sacramento County Courthouse
720 9th Street
Dqjartment 27
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Case No. 34-2021-80003612-CU-WM-GDS (Public.Resource.Org. Inc. v. OAL. et al)
Dear Honorable Judge Gevercer:
Enclosed, please find a Proposed Order and Proposed Judgment as requested by this Court in its
Tentative Ruling. Petitioner recommended additional language be added to the judgment to
clarify how the Judgment does or does not apply to Respondent BSC. Respondent OAL did not
agree that the additional language was necessary and declined to make the addition. Enclosed is
correspondence between Respondents' Counsel and Petitioner's Covinsel which more fully
expresses each parties' position regarding the language of the Judgment.
Sincerely,
LAURA A. RANDLES-LITTLE
Deputy Attomey General
Attomey for Respondents Office ofAdministrative
Law and Building Standards Cpmmission
Document Filed Date
April 11, 2022
Case Filing Date
March 17, 2021
Category
(Writ - Administrative Mandamus)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
ROB BONTA State of California Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 13001 STREET, SUITE 125 P.O. BOX 944255 SACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2550 PubUc: (916)445-9555 Telephone: (916) 210-6504 E-Mail: Laura.RandlesLittle@doj.ca.gov April 4, 2022 Hon. Steven M. Gevercer Gordon D. Schaber Sacramento County Courthouse 720 9th Street Dqjartment 27 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Case No. 34-2021-80003612-CU-WM-GDS (Public.Resource.Org. Inc. v. OAL. et al) Dear Honorable Judge Gevercer: Enclosed, please find a Proposed Order and Proposed Judgment as requested by this Court in its Tentative Ruling. Petitioner recommended additional language be added to the judgment to clarify how the Judgment does or does not apply to Respondent BSC. Respondent OAL did not agree that the additional language was necessary and declined to make the addition. Enclosed is correspondence between Respondents' Counsel and Petitioner's Covinsel which more fully expresses each parties' position regarding the language of the Judgment. Sincerely, LAURA A. RANDLES-LITTLE Deputy Attomey General Attomey for Respondents Office ofAdministrative Law and Building Standards Cpmmission