Taxpayer Lawsuit
Alleges State Cannot Legally Spend
Proposition 1A Bond Proceeds on Central Valley Project
Part II
In Part I of the Tos
case, the court
found that the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s
Central Valley project was in violation of Proposition
1A. However, the Court of Appeal neutralized that
decision, ruling that Plaintiffs did not have a remedy
at that stage of the process. Part II of the case goes
far beyond Part I. It had the potential to shut down the
project.
On November 2, 2015,
Plaintiffs filed their Opening Brief.
Plaintiff’s Initial
Filing
Plaintiffs’ Opening
Brief
Request for Judicial
Notice
Notice of Motion for
Judgment
Offer of Proof
The brief argued four points:
1. The decision to proceed with a blended system, in which
HSR trains would share tracks with Caltrain, violates Prop.
1A.
2. The route selected by the Authority cannot provide trips
between the Los Angeles Union Station and San Francisco's
Transbay Transit Center in the 2 hour and 40 minute maximum
travel time mandated by Prop. 1A.
3. No reasonable person could believe the Authority's
determination that the Initial Operating Segment of the
system will be financially viable, a requirement of Prop.
1A.
4. If the Court finds any of these three violations of
Prop. 1A, the Court should issue a permanent injunction
blocking the High-Speed Rail Authority from spending not
only high-speed rail bond funds, but also any other state
or federal funds, on the project.
Plaintiffs attempted to bring into the case a document
uncovered by the Los Angeles Times
that shows major cost
escalations for tunneling through the Tehachapis, as
further proof of the non-viability of the project
Supplemental
Brief
After the Opening Brief was filed, the Los Angeles Times
broke a story about a CHSRA document that showed a 31% increase in costs
had been kept hidden from the public. The
Times
and the Tos legal team both sought the document
from CHSRA, but were refused. Pressure from the State
Assembly Republican Caucus and several Republican
congressmen eventually forced the Authority to
make it public. After the Authority capitulated, the
court allowed the plaintiffs to file a supplemental
brief to explain the legal significance of the formerly
secret document. In short, there is no evidence that the
2014 Business Plan was based on valid cost estimates. It
ignored all the design work completed since the 2012
Business Plan, and merely adjusted the 2012 cost
figures.
Plaintiffs’ Supplemental
Brief
Opposition
Brief
Opposition to Petition for Writ of
Mandate
Objections to Requests for Judicial
Notice
Reply
Brief
Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion
for Judgment
Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants’ Objections
to Requests for Judicial Notice
Hearing
A hearing was held on February 11, 2016 in Department 31,
Sacramento Superior Court.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibits
Morris Brown's Videos of Hearing: Part 1 (47 min); Part 2 (36 min); Part 3 (22 min)
Press Reports of
Hearing
LA Times
The AP story: Mercury News; Sacramento Bee
The Crankblog
Courthouse News
The Hamilton Report
The Fresno Bee
Pre-Story
The Fresno Bee Story
The Court’s
Ruling
The Court ruled against the Plaintiffs in its
Ruling on Submitted
Matter,
primarily because of finding the action premature. This
is why the decision was not a substantive win for the
Authority, but rather a procedural delay:
“While the
Authority does not have sufficient evidence to prove the
blended system can currently comply with all the Bond Act
requirements, as they have not provided analysis of trip
time to the San Francisco Transbay Terminal, and cannot yet
achieve five-minute headways (even allowing for the
definition of “train” to include non-HSR trains). ... There
is no evidence currently before the Court that the blended
system will
not comply with
the Bond Act system requirements. Although Plaintiffs have
raised compelling questions about potential future
compliance, the Authority has not yet submitted a funding
plan pursuant to section 2704.08, subsections (c) and (d)
seeking to expend Bond Act funds. Thus, the issue of the
project’s compliance with the Bond Act is not ripe for
review.” (at 15-16.)
As a result of the Authority’s filing of a second funding plan January 3, 2017, the issue of compliance with the requirements of the Bond Act is now ripe for review.