Taxpayer Lawsuit
Alleges State Cannot Legally Spend
Proposition 1A Bond Proceeds on Central Valley
Project
A trial was held February 11,
2016 in the second part of this case. Please go to
Part
II.
On November 14, 2011, Attorney Michael Brady filed a
lawsuit on behalf of plaintiffs John Tos,
Aaron Fukuda, and Kings County, asking the Court to
interpret Proposition 1A, and find that the proposed
Central Valley project of the California High-Speed Rail
Authority was ineligible to receive bond funds.
Demurrer
The California High-Speed Rail Authority requested the
Court to dismiss the taxpayer lawsuit, by filing its
CAHSRA Notice of Hearing and
Demurrer. See
the arguments laid out in the CAHSRA Points and Authorities in Support of
Demurrer.
Plaintiffs responded by filing its Plaintiff’s Opposition to Demurrer Points and
Authorities,
supported by Plaintiff’s Opposition to Demurrer Request
for Judicial Notice and Plaintiff’s Opposition to Demurrer
Declaration.
The Authority then filed its Reply and Objections to Request for Judicial
Notice.
A hearing was held on June 22nd in Sacramento Superior
Court, where Judge Robert Hight affirmed his
tentative ruling, which sustained the demurrer, with
leave to amend.
Second Amended
Complaint
Two weeks later, Attorney Michael Brady filed a
Second Amended
Complaint. He
later released his Attorney Explanation
Letter, which
explains the case.
Opening Briefs from
Plaintiffs
Trial Brief Part I
Trial Brief Part II
Declarations of Experts
(Includes the Kopp
Declaration)
Index of Evidence
Opposition Briefs from
Authority
Memo in Opposition
Objection to Part II Trial
Brief
RJN and Exhibits 1-5
RJN Exhibits 6-8
Aitchison Declaration
Vacca Declaration
Objection to Part I RJN
Reply Briefs from
Plaintiffs
Reply Brief Part I
Reply Brief Part II
Response to Objections Part
II
Warren Declaration
Kathy Hamilton
Declaration
Hamilton Exhibits
Jones Declaration
Jones Exhibits
Oral argument on Part I only took place on May 31, 2013 in
Sacramento Superior Court, Department 31.
The Court’s Ruling on
Part I
The Court issued its Ruling on Submitted Matter
on August 16, 2013. The
ruling determined that the California High-Speed Rail
Authority had failed to comply with the requirements of
Proposition 1A, the HSR bond measure. Parties are to
file further briefs to assist the Court in deciding the
appropriate remedy.
Remedies
Plaintiffs filed their Opening Brief on Remedies
on September 16, 2013. It
was accompanied by a Request for Judicial Notice
and a Proposed Order that suggests the Court order the
cancellation of over $1 billion in construction
contracts and a prohibition on accessing the $6 billion
in state bond and federal grant funds until the
Authority complies with the bond measure’s requirements.
Kings County Water District filed an amicus brief, which was followed by a
reply brief because no Opposition had been filed
by the Authority.
The Authority responded to the Plaintiff’s opening brief
with their Opposition Brief and a Declaration.
Plaintiffs then filed their Reply Brief, along with the Wespi Declaration, the Warren Declaration, the Flashman Declaration and a Request for Judicial
Notice.
A fascinating legal battle ensued, as the Authority asked
the Court to strike the parts of the Reply Brief that
rebutted its Opposition.
Plaintiffs filed a vigorous Objection, which was followed by an
Objection by the Authority.
The Court’s Ruling on
Remedies
A hearing was held in Sacramento on November 8, and
a ruling issued on November 25, 2013. The
delighted Plaintiffs issued a press release.
A writ was issued January 3, 2014, with a
60-day return date for the recission of the funding
plan.
This ruling was
appealed by an Extraordinary Writ
petition to the
Supreme Court, and ultimately overturned.
Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings
In an attempt to end the litigation, Defendants filed
a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings on
January 10, 2014. If successful, the second half of
the Tos case would never go to trial, thus
bringing the case to a close. Prior to the filing, the
parties agreed to a Stipulation that identified the issues to be
covered in Part II of the litigation.
Plaintiffs filed an Opposition and Request for Judicial
Notice,
asserting that there were no legal grounds for the
motion. Defendants filed this reply.
The Court ruled on March 4, 2014 that the Authority
must face a trial on the question of whether its HSR
plan complies with Proposition 1A.
Motion for Order to
Limit the Scope of Evidence
The Authority filed a Motion for Order to Limit the Scope of
Evidence on
July 2, 2014. Plaintiffs responded with an
Opposition Brief and Request for Judicial
Notice.
The Authority then filed a Reply Brief.
A hearing was held in Sacramento on July 25th. The Court
ruled that the evidence would be limited to the record
in Tos
Part I and the Authority’s
Administrative Record for the adoption of the 2014 Business
Plan, subject to the right to file a motion to augment the
record.