Laserfiche WebLink
attached a survey that identified the specific parcel to be obtained comprising an area of 3.348 <br /> acres. IstAmd.FOF¶85-¶102.6(R.O.A., 00-1-181K, V.41/00507 and 05-1-15K, V.27/01031.) <br /> On February 7, 2005, before the Coupes were served with the Complaint in Civil No. 05- <br /> 1-15K,the Coupes filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Consolidate. (R.O.A., 05-1- <br /> 15K,V.1/00702.) <br /> On March 31, 2005, the Court entered its order consolidating Civil No. 00-1-181K and <br /> Civil No. 05-1-15K. 1stAmd.FOF¶88. (R.O.A., 00-1-181K, V.41/00507 and 05-1-15K, <br /> V.27/01031.) <br /> The pleadings pending at the time of trial were: <br /> (a) County's Complaint in Civil No. 00-1-181K filed on October 9, 2000, and First <br /> Amended Complaint in Civil No. 05-1-15K filed on January 11, 2007; <br /> (b) Coupes' Second Amended Counterclaim and First Amended Third-Party Complaint <br /> in Civil No. 00-1-181K filed on December 7, 2005, and Counterclaim and Cross-Claim in Civil <br /> No. 05-1-15K filed on February 12, 2007, both of which included claims for abatement; and <br /> (c) County, Coupes and Oceanside's answers to these pleadings. <br /> The consolidated non jury trial of Civil No. 00-1-181K and Civil No. 05-1-15K was held <br /> on July 9-12, 16-20, 23, 25-27, 30-31 and August 2, 2007, before the Honorable Ronald Ibarra. <br /> On July 27, 2007, during oral argument on a Rule 50 motion for judgment, counsel for <br /> the Coupes argued that there are"substantial differences" between Civil No. 00-1-181K and <br /> Civil No. 05-1-15K: <br /> Page 50 <br /> 3 . . . . But there <br /> 4 are some substantial differences between the cases. First <br /> 5 of all the parties, as the Court has pointed out, are <br /> 6 different. <br /> 7 There's a half an acre difference in the actual <br /> 8 size of the land. Which if twenty percent is de minimis, <br /> 9 that's news to us. It's a different shape, different <br /> 10 configuration of land. And of course,the public-use issue <br /> 6 Deputy Corporation Counsel Gerald Takase testified that the three-year delay in filing this <br /> complaint was because the County wanted to resolve the Kelly case, Civil No. 00-1-0192K, <br /> before proceeding further in what became Civil No. 05-1-015K. Test. Takase (7116107pm,pp.51 <br /> -52) (S.R.O.A., 00-1-0018K, V.43/T0007, and 05-1-15K, V.30/7`0007). <br /> 6 <br />