US Ex Rel. Rosales v. SAN FRAN. HOUSING AUTHOR.

Good Law
173 F. Supp. 2d 987
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 26, 2001C-95-4509 CALCalifornia19,124 words

Opinion

Opinion

LEGGE, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment of defendants the San Francisco Housing Authority ("SFHA"), the City and County of San Francisco ("San Francisco" or "the city"), and individual defendants Albert Nelson and David I. Gilmore (collectively "defendants"). [1]

Although this case was filed in 1995, it did not progress significantly between 1995 and 1997, when the United States finally decided not to intervene. Discovery commenced in early 1998. An amended complaint was filed in 1999, and the case was set for trial in late 1999. But extensive criminal proceedings were initiated in November of 1999 and have only recently been concluded.

The court previously dismissed with prejudice the claims against the State of California. Defendants make the present motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment on the first and third claims for relief of qui tam relators/plaintiffs Carmen T. Rosales and Michael V. Meadows ("plaintiffs"). The court heard oral argument of the motion, but later stayed all proceedings pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v.…

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.