Lacy et al. v. City and County of San Francisco et al.

DocketDescription: Mail returned, unable to forward.; Notes: court's remittitur to attorney Jim Emery; Found inactive addresses: jim.emery@sfcityatty.org. Inactive recipients are ones that have generated a hard bounce, a spam complaint, or a manual suppression.

DocketDescription: Case complete.

DocketDescription: Remittitur issued.

DocketDescription: Mail returned, unable to forward.; Notes: court's order modifying opinion to attorney Jim Emery; TrueFiling Bounce Details - Found inactive addresses: jim.emery@sfcityatty.org. Inactive recipients are ones that have generated a hard bounce, a spam complaint, or a manual suppression. recipient unknown smtp;550 5.1.10 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipientNotFound; Recipient jim.emery@sfcityatty.org not found by SMTP address lookup

DocketDescription: Petition for rehearing denied.; Notes: see Order Modifying Opinion filed on Aug. 28, 2023

DocketDescription: Mod. of opinion filed (no change in judgment).; Notes: The opinion filed August 8, 2023 is modified as follows: (1) In the second paragraph, that starts with " 'Generally courts will only consider issues properly raised by the parties on appeal. [Citations.] However, the Supreme Court has recognized two exceptions to this rule,' " on page 29, change the (Sacramento County Employees' Retirement System v. Superior Court (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 440, 473.) to be (Sacramento County Employees' Retirement System v. Superior Court (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 440, 473 (Sacramento County).). (2) Insert the following footnote at the end of the same paragraph, after ". . . we will consider the new argument." on page 29: In a petition for rehearing, Plaintiffs argue Government Code section 68081 requires this court to order supplemental briefing on the vote dilution issue before deciding it. The parties had an opportunity to address the issue in briefs responding to the amicus briefs. In that brief, Plaintiffs provided a short substantive argument on the vote dilution issue and suggested this court "consider" supplemental briefing or a remand to the trial court. That Plaintiffs did not elect to discuss the issue in greater depth does not mean they are entitled to additional briefing. "[Government Code] [s]ection 68081 does not require that a party actually have briefed an issue; it requires only that the party had the opportunity to do so." (People v. Alice (2007) 41 Cal.4th 668, 677.) Plaintiffs' rehearing petition also contends Sacramento County, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th 440 does not support this court's consideration of the vote dilution argument, and that this court should not consider the argument because the parties did not have the opportunity to develop a factual record below. In their response to the amicus briefs, however, Plaintiffs argued this court should consider the issue, and cited Sacramento County. Moreover, in their rehearing petition, Plaintiffs fail to explain why further factual development is necessary, much less provide examples of evidence-or even general types of evidence-they would seek to present relevant to the vote dilution issue. This footnote will become footnote number 29, renumbering all subsequent footnotes accordingly. This order does not effect a change in the judgment. Plaintiffs' August 23, 2023 petition for rehearing is denied.

DocketDescription: Rehearing petition filed.; Notes: from attorney Chad Morgan for respondents

DispositionDescription: Reversed & remanded to trial court w/directions; Disposition Type: Final The judgment is reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a new judgment in favor of the City. The City is awarded its costs on appeal.; Publication Status: Signed Published; Author: Simons, Mark B.; Participants: Burns, Gordon B. (Concur) Chou, Danny Y. (Concur)

DocketDescription: Opinion filed.; Notes: (Signed Published) The judgment is reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a new judgment in favor of the City. The City is awarded its costs on appeal.

DocketDescription: Cause argued and submitted.

DocketBrief: Civil case information statement filed.; Party Attorney: Defendant and Appellant: City and County of San FranciscoAttorney: James Moxon Emery

DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.

DocketDescription: Exhibits lodged.; Notes: Volume 3

DocketDescription: Exhibits lodged.; Notes: Volume 2

DocketDescription: Exhibits lodged.; Notes: Volume 1

DocketDescription: Petition for writ of supersedeas filed.; Notes: And in the Alternative Request for Calendar Preference Immediate Stay Requested

DocketDescription: Exempt filing fee.

DocketDescription: Notified parties of local rules and procedures.

DocketDescription: Notice of appeal lodged/received.; Notes: Filed 08/16/2022 by Counsel for Defendant City and County of San Francisco and John Arntz appealing orders from 07/29/2022 and 08/08/2022.

DocketTrial Court Name: San Francisco County Superior Court - Main; County: San Francisco; Trial Court Case Number: CPF22517714; Trial Court Judge: Ulmer, Jr., Richard