North Pacifica, LLC v. City of Pacifica

Good Law
335 F. Supp. 2d 1045·2004 WL 2066679·2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18563
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 16, 2004C-01-4823 EMCCalifornia3,532 words

Opinion

Opinion

Chen, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY (Docket No. 333); AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE FROMM DECLARATION UNDER SEAL AND IN CAMERA (Docket No. 353)

Plaintiff North Pacifica LLC (“NP”) has filed a motion to disqualify Defendant the City of Pacifica’s experts, Sanford Skaggs and Daniel Curtin, as well as current counsel for the City (ie., the McDonough firm and the Gagen firm). The Court held a hearing on NP’s motion on September 8, 2004, at the conclusion of which the Court granted the motion to disqualify Mr. Skaggs and Mr. Curtin but denied the motion to disqualify the City’s current counsel. This order memorializes the Court’s ruling at the hearing and also summarizes the basis of the Court’s ruling, as discussed in further detail at the September 8 hearing.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

At issue in this case is NP’s development permit application for a property known as the Bowl, which is located in the City. As established at the liability phase of the trial, the City violated NP’s right to equal protection by imposing a condition on the Bowl project — known as Condition 13(b) — that was not imposed on similarly situated…

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.