Upland residents continue to fight animal shelter
An appeal filed against an Upland decision to build an animal shelter in Memorial Park may drag on for another few months.
Residents who filed a lawsuit against the Planning Commission are requesting the opportunity to defend their opposition to the shelter in front of a panel made up of a Court of Appeal's judges.
A tentative opinion issued in early April by the Court of Appeal upheld a previous decision that said the residents had incorrectly filed their lawsuit against the commission when it should have been the City Council.
The court is not bound by the tentative opinion and is willing to amend or discard it if counsel's arguments persuade the court that the opinion is incorrect, according to a Court of Appeal notice.
"However, at present in this case, the court believes that the record and briefs thoroughly present the facts and legal arguments such that the court is prepared to rule as set forth in the tentative opinion without oral argument," according to the notice from the Court of Appeal.
Residents who filed a lawsuit against the Planning Commission are requesting the opportunity to defend their opposition to the shelter in front of a panel made up of a Court of Appeal's judges.
A tentative opinion issued in early April by the Court of Appeal upheld a previous decision that said the residents had incorrectly filed their lawsuit against the commission when it should have been the City Council.
The court is not bound by the tentative opinion and is willing to amend or discard it if counsel's arguments persuade the court that the opinion is incorrect, according to a Court of Appeal notice.
"However, at present in this case, the court believes that the record and briefs thoroughly present the facts and legal arguments such that the court is prepared to rule as set forth in the tentative opinion without oral argument," according to the notice from the Court of Appeal.
Construction of the animal shelter has continued and is ahead of
schedule, under budget and is expected to open in the summer, Assistant
City Manager Rod Foster said.
The city is happy that the Court of Appeal has issued a blistering tentative opinion in the city's favor, Foster said.
"It is our plan now to defend that tentative opinion before the court as well as to aggressively seek reimbursement on all costs of appeal from (the residents' attorney Jim) Reiss and the Appellate parties since the court has awarded those to us as well," Foster said.
Residents near the park filed an appeal in July 2007 against the commission's approval of the project. A month later, the council also approved it.
The residents said the shelter would be better somewhere else for a litany of reasons, including location, park safety, noise and aesthetic issues.
The case was first heard in April 2008 in the San Bernardino County courthouse in Needles, where a judge ruled in favor of the city of Upland because the opponents had incorrectly sued the commission.
The appellate opinion said the court in Needles properly dismissed the action in favor of the city and City Council due to the plaintiff's failure to name the proper party on the original lawsuit and not adhering to filing procedures.
"I'm a little surprised giving the tentative opinion being so all-encompassing, but perhaps they're thinking they can come up with something to say to sway it," City Attorney Bill Curley said.
"Anything can happen in the courtroom ... There's never assurance it's a panel of judges. You can catch their attention or not, but the Superior Court was very firm in its decision that the city's argument was correct. The tentative (opinion) leaves no half-open door or any glimmer of light."
Scheduling the oral argument could take up to 90 days, and preparations on the city's side could cost the city more money.
"It's unfortunate that Mr. Reiss is continuing to waste taxpayer money defending a lawsuit that has been consistently found to be baseless for him and his clients," Foster said. "The city looks forward to the end of this frivolous litigation."
Despite the opinion and previous rulings, the residents want their day in court, Reiss said.
"I think the residents are hopeful, one, that if there is an adverse ruling the city will make the decision on the shelter, whether to go forward or not, and second, on the issues of what is park use," he said. "Everybody wants to enjoy the parks, and the question is what is consistent with that."
sandra.emerson@inlandnewspapers.com
The city is happy that the Court of Appeal has issued a blistering tentative opinion in the city's favor, Foster said.
"It is our plan now to defend that tentative opinion before the court as well as to aggressively seek reimbursement on all costs of appeal from (the residents' attorney Jim) Reiss and the Appellate parties since the court has awarded those to us as well," Foster said.
Residents near the park filed an appeal in July 2007 against the commission's approval of the project. A month later, the council also approved it.
The residents said the shelter would be better somewhere else for a litany of reasons, including location, park safety, noise and aesthetic issues.
The case was first heard in April 2008 in the San Bernardino County courthouse in Needles, where a judge ruled in favor of the city of Upland because the opponents had incorrectly sued the commission.
The appellate opinion said the court in Needles properly dismissed the action in favor of the city and City Council due to the plaintiff's failure to name the proper party on the original lawsuit and not adhering to filing procedures.
"I'm a little surprised giving the tentative opinion being so all-encompassing, but perhaps they're thinking they can come up with something to say to sway it," City Attorney Bill Curley said.
"Anything can happen in the courtroom ... There's never assurance it's a panel of judges. You can catch their attention or not, but the Superior Court was very firm in its decision that the city's argument was correct. The tentative (opinion) leaves no half-open door or any glimmer of light."
Scheduling the oral argument could take up to 90 days, and preparations on the city's side could cost the city more money.
"It's unfortunate that Mr. Reiss is continuing to waste taxpayer money defending a lawsuit that has been consistently found to be baseless for him and his clients," Foster said. "The city looks forward to the end of this frivolous litigation."
Despite the opinion and previous rulings, the residents want their day in court, Reiss said.
"I think the residents are hopeful, one, that if there is an adverse ruling the city will make the decision on the shelter, whether to go forward or not, and second, on the issues of what is park use," he said. "Everybody wants to enjoy the parks, and the question is what is consistent with that."
sandra.emerson@inlandnewspapers.com
the nerve of you people,dont you know they care more about animals than they do about humans.
I will say it; I care more about my dogs than I do most humans. Humans are evil as you can see by the residents who filed this frivolous lawsuit all because they are worried about the way this shelter will look in their neighborhood.