On April 26, 2018 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
California Renters Legal Advocacy And Education Fund,
Fierce, Victoria,
Moon, John,
San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation,
and
City Of San Mateo,
City Of San Mateo Planning Commission,
San Mateo City Council,
for (43) Unlimited Other Petition (Not Spec)
in the District Court of San Mateo County.
Preview
Electmnitally
Eunmm Eu: Hufimmcmnq H 5m Mua-
Hg.-
m 3/6/2020
Bf
“MM
DOLORES BASTIAN DALTON, StateBar # 94931
ddalton@goldfarblipman.com
BARBARA E. KAUTZ, StateBar # 231050
bkautz@goldfarblipman.com
RYE P. MURPHY, StateBar # 289427
rmurphy@goldfarblipman.com
GOLDFARB & LIPMAN LLP
1300 Clay Street, Eleventh Floor
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: (510) 836-6336
Facsimile: (510) 836-1035
[Exemptfmm Filing Fee (Gov. Code § 61 03)]
SHAWN MASON, StateBar # 115996
CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Attorney's Office
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
10
11 Attorneys for Respondents
CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO CITY
12 COUNCIL, and CITY OF SAN MATEO
PLANNING COMMISSION
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
15
16 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS Case N0.: 18-CIV-02105
FEDERATION, CALIFORNIA RENTERS LEGAL
17 ADVOCACY AND EDUCATION FUND, RESPONDENTS' OPPOSITION TO
VICTORIA FIERCE AND JOHN MOON, MOTION TO STRIKE COSTS, OR
18 ALTERNATIVELY, TO TAX COSTS
&
Goldforb Petitioner,
19 Date: March 2020
19,
Lipmon
LLP
VS. Time: 2:00 pm.
20 Dept: 28
W300 Cloy
Street
CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO CITY Judge: Hon. George A. Miram
21 COUNCIL, AND CITY OF SAN MATEO
Eleventh Floor
PLANNING COMMISSION, Action Filed: April 26, 2017
22
Oakland Respondents.
23
California
TONY MEHMET GUNDOGDU and AYNUR V.
24 GUNDOGDU,
94612
25 Real Parties in Interest.
510 836-6336
26
510 83671035
FAX
28
1
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS
660\07Q775418.1
OPPOSITIONTO MOTION TO STRIKEOR TAX COSTS
2 On November 7, 2019, the Court entered an order denying the petition for writ of
3 mandate. As the prevailing party, Respondents prepared a proposed judgment, which included an
4 award of costs. Petitioners objected to the form of the judgment. Respondents submitted the
5 proposed judgment to the Court, which entered a judgment against Petitioners that included an
6 award of costs. Respondents then submitted a Memorandum of Costs on December 20, 2019,
7 which Petitioners have challenged in their motion to strike or tax costs, filed on January 30,
8 2020.
9 While Respondents' Memorandum of Costs does not encompass all of the actual
10 expenses Respondents incurred successfully defending against Petitioners' lawsuit, each of the
11 items listed therein is fully recoverable under the law. There is no question that Respondents are
12 the prevailing party. They are entitled to the costs of their successful defense-as this Court has
13 already determined, by awarding costs to Respondents in the Judgment.
14 1. PREPARATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD IS A RECOVERABLE
COST IN HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT LITIGATION
15
Petitioners incorrectly argue that preparation of the administrative record is not a cost a
16
prevailing local agency can recover in litigation under the Housing Accountability Act (the
17
HAA.)
18
&
Gotdlorb
In an administrative writ proceeding, the petitioner bears the responsibility of providing
19
lpmooLIP
the court with the documentation necessary for the court to decide the issues presented by the
20
1300 Cloy $tree•
petition. (Elizabeth D. v.Zolin (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 347 [incomplete record provided by
21
Eleven•h Floo,
Petitioner failed to establish administrative abuse of discretion), Hothem v. City and County of
22
Ool
Document Filed Date
March 06, 2020
Case Filing Date
April 26, 2018
Category
(43) Unlimited Other Petition (Not Spec)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Electmnitally Eunmm Eu: Hufimmcmnq H 5m Mua- Hg.- m 3/6/2020 Bf “MM DOLORES BASTIAN DALTON, StateBar # 94931 ddalton@goldfarblipman.com BARBARA E. KAUTZ, StateBar # 231050 bkautz@goldfarblipman.com RYE P. MURPHY, StateBar # 289427 rmurphy@goldfarblipman.com GOLDFARB & LIPMAN LLP 1300 Clay Street, Eleventh Floor Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 836-6336 Facsimile: (510) 836-1035 [Exemptfmm Filing Fee (Gov. Code § 61 03)] SHAWN MASON, StateBar # 115996 CITY OF SAN MATEO City Attorney's Office 330 West 20th Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 10 11 Attorneys for Respondents CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO CITY 12 COUNCIL, and CITY OF SAN MATEO PLANNING COMMISSION 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 15 16 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS Case N0.: 18-CIV-02105 FEDERATION, CALIFORNIA RENTERS LEGAL 17 ADVOCACY AND EDUCATION FUND, RESPONDENTS' OPPOSITION TO VICTORIA FIERCE AND JOHN MOON, MOTION TO STRIKE COSTS, OR 18 ALTERNATIVELY, TO TAX COSTS & Goldforb Petitioner, 19 Date: March 2020 19, Lipmon LLP VS. Time: 2:00 pm. 20 Dept: 28 W300 Cloy Street CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO CITY Judge: Hon. George A. Miram 21 COUNCIL, AND CITY OF SAN MATEO Eleventh Floor PLANNING COMMISSION, Action Filed: April 26, 2017 22 Oakland Respondents. 23 California TONY MEHMET GUNDOGDU and AYNUR V. 24 GUNDOGDU, 94612 25 Real Parties in Interest. 510 836-6336 26 510 83671035 FAX 28 1 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS 660\07Q775418.1 OPPOSITIONTO MOTION TO STRIKEOR TAX COSTS 2 On November 7, 2019, the Court entered an order denying the petition for writ of 3 mandate. As the prevailing party, Respondents prepared a proposed judgment, which included an 4 award of costs. Petitioners objected to the form of the judgment. Respondents submitted the 5 proposed judgment to the Court, which entered a judgment against Petitioners that included an 6 award of costs. Respondents then submitted a Memorandum of Costs on December 20, 2019, 7 which Petitioners have challenged in their motion to strike or tax costs, filed on January 30, 8 2020. 9 While Respondents' Memorandum of Costs does not encompass all of the actual 10 expenses Respondents incurred successfully defending against Petitioners' lawsuit, each of the 11 items listed therein is fully recoverable under the law. There is no question that Respondents are 12 the prevailing party. They are entitled to the costs of their successful defense-as this Court has 13 already determined, by awarding costs to Respondents in the Judgment. 14 1. PREPARATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD IS A RECOVERABLE COST IN HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT LITIGATION 15 Petitioners incorrectly argue that preparation of the administrative record is not a cost a 16 prevailing local agency can recover in litigation under the Housing Accountability Act (the 17 HAA.) 18 & Gotdlorb In an administrative writ proceeding, the petitioner bears the responsibility of providing 19 lpmooLIP the court with the documentation necessary for the court to decide the issues presented by the 20 1300 Cloy $tree• petition. (Elizabeth D. v.Zolin (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 347 [incomplete record provided by 21 Eleven•h Floo, Petitioner failed to establish administrative abuse of discretion), Hothem v. City and County of 22 Ool