Ojavan Investors, Inc. Port Lemore Corporation Sutton Properties, Inc. Sealubber, Inc. Pakid Holdings Maleck Agency, Ltd. Quelimane Co. Mtg Alliance Corp. Highland Group, Inc. P.U. Enterprises Peter D. Bogart v. California Coastal Commission Superior Court, State of California, County of Los Angeles, Ojavan Investors, Inc. Port Lemore Corporation Sutton Properties, Inc. Sealubber, Inc. Pakid Holdings Maleck Agency, Ltd. Quelimane Co. Mtg Alliance Corp. Highland Group, Inc. P.U. Enterprises Peter D. Bogart v. California Coastal Commission Superior Court, State of California, County of Los Angeles

Good Law
97 F.3d 1460
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 12, 199695-55298California726 words

Opinion

Opinion

97 F.3d 1460 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. OJAVAN INVESTORS, INC.; Port Lemore Corporation; Sutton Properties, Inc.; Sealubber, Inc.; Pakid Holdings; Maleck Agency, Ltd.; Quelimane Co.; MTG Alliance Corp.; Highland Group, Inc.; P.U. Enterprises; Peter D. Bogart, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION; Superior Court, State of California, County of Los Angeles, Defendants-Appellees. OJAVAN INVESTORS, INC.; Port Lemore Corporation; Sutton Properties, Inc.; Sealubber, Inc.; Pakid Holdings; Maleck Agency, Ltd.; Quelimane Co.; MTG Alliance Corp.; Highland Group, Inc.; P.U. Enterprises; Peter D. Bogart, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION; Superior Court, State of California, County of Los Angeles, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-55298, 95-55664. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 8, 1996. Decided Sept. 12, 1996. Before: HALL, O'SCANNLAIN, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2…

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.