DanvilleExpress.com and SanRamonExpress.com have merged into DanvilleSanRamon.com. You are seeing this page because the story below was previously on SanRamonExpress.com. The archives of SanRamonExpress.com are available here, but visit DanvilleSanRamon.com for new information and stories about our area.


Pleasanton officials agree to extend appellate court hearing on developer's lawsuit

Case now moves into 2012 for consideration as election campaigns get under way

Pleasanton's city attorney and outside legal counsel acknowledged Monday night that they have agreed with a developer's legal team to extend the deadline for arguments before the state Court of Appeal in a lawsuit the developer is pressing against the city.

This story contains 564 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.


Like this comment
Posted by Laugh to bank?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 4, 2011 at 11:17 am

See the chain of comments on this topic.

Web Link

Why do they keep trying to negotiate with a bully?
You can't bargain with a terrorist, either.
And if you do, it just encourages more of the same.

Will it ever end?

Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 4, 2011 at 11:36 am

Stacey is a registered user.

After following all these lawsuits over the years, deadline extensions seem to be nothing novel or unexpected, but rather the normal way lawyers conduct their business with the courts.

Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 4, 2011 at 11:38 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Contrary to this article, I think Lowell _did_ give an answer on what the rationale is for extending the deadline.

Like this comment
Posted by follow the money
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 4, 2011 at 11:42 am

The reason, "follow the money".

James Tong who is the developer for the Lin's is a big campaign contributor. He has given so much that he has to do special filings with the state FPPC.

The politicians in our city that are running for Mayor or Assembly (Hosterman, Cook-Callio, Thorne) want to appease Tong so they can receive money (directly or indirectly).

Like this comment
Posted by Sue Happy
a resident of Downtown
on Oct 4, 2011 at 2:55 pm

This must be an agenda of someone with something to gain. This one project can not be significant to foreign investors. Who are their local representatives? Where is the momentum behind this campaign against Pleasanton really coming from? Is Mr. Inderbitzen, the lawyer, responsible for this attack on our city or is it James Tong? Why was James Tong an honored guest at a past mayors dinner? Is this issue influenced by campaign contributions?

It is not reasonable to accommodate the interests of anyone who is actively and repeatedly suing our City. Citizens who care about the quality of life in Pleasanton should trump the interests of outside investors.

Like this comment
Posted by franco
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Oct 5, 2011 at 8:48 am

franco is a registered user.

I don't understand the reported comment by the city attorney that legal arguments are not likely to begin after the first of the year. The appellate court website's docket for this case shows that the last extension of time was made last Wednesday and granted on Thursday with the notation that no further extensions of time contemplated. This activity must be the extension mentioned in this article. The opening brief is now due October 25. That's not after the first of the year. Of course, oral legal arguments would not happen until next year. Still, the lawsuit is going forward.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.