Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Turlock

Good Law
483 F. Supp. 2d 987·2006 WL 1875446·2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47924
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 3, 20061:04-cv-05278California13,177 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wanger, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Fed.R.Civ.P.56)

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants the City of Turlock and the Turlock City Council (collectively, “the City”) move for summary judgment against Plaintiffs Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust (collectively, “Wal-Mart”). Wal-Mart opposes the motion.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The complaint was filed on February 11, 2004. Doc. 1, Compl. The City moved for summary judgment on March 29, 2005. Doc. 50, Mot. for Summ. J.; Doc. 51, Mem. in Supp. Wal-Mart filed opposition on November 2, 2005. Doc. 155, Mem. in Opp. The City responded on December 12, 2005. Doc. 190, Resp. in Supp. Oral argument was heard on February 6, 2006, during which leave was granted to supplement the pleadings regarding whether Wal-Mart’s putative as-applied challenge to the Ordinance is ripe. Wal-Mart filed its supplemental response in opposition to summary judgment on February 21, 2006. Doc. 204, Suppl. Mem. in Opp. The City replied to the supplemental response on February 27, 2006. Doc. 207, Reply to Suppl. Mem. in Opp. Wal-Mart filed its second supplemental response in opposition to summary judgment on March 24, 2006. Doc.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.