While some have suggested that this was a major setback for the project,
the reality is the judge's ruling simply maintains the status quo until she
can hear full arguments on the merit of the parties' claims when the trial
occurs. This was not a decision based on the merits of the case as many have
assumed.
The Judge's ruling does potentially cause Cal some harm because additional
construction costs will be incurred due to the delays in the project.
But as Coach Tedford and others have suggested, the project can still be completed
on time if the judge agrees with Cal after the next phase of the litigation.
In order to issue an injunction, a judge must apply the several criteria that
are required by statutes that underlie the injunction process. In her order,
Judge Miller merely cited those criteria as a basis for her decision - and
did so essentially by quoting the statute verbatim.
For example, the order said, ... "... the Court finds that
petitioners have made a sufficiently strong showing of likelihood of success
on their claims ... as to justify issuance of a preliminary injunction ..."
Some have interpreted that phrase to mean that the plaintiffs are "likely" to
succeed.
What it in fact means is that the plaintiffs made enough of a case that it
warrants going to a full trial. The judge might have felt that the case they
made was overwhelming, or she might have thought it was just barely credible,
but the court order itself provides us with no clues as to what her thinking
was.
Judges are also required to find that the harm arising from an injunction
is less than the harm caused by letting the defendant proceed - otherwise
an injunction cannot be issued.
So Judge Miller did that. The order states, "The Court further finds
that the interim harm to (Cal) ... would be less significant than the ... harm
petitioners would suffer ...". Again, this does not convey anything
about what harm Judge Miller actually believes would be the case (or
if she has even analyzed that), it is merely a statement that is required by
the statutes if an injunction was to be issued.
In a high profile, complex case involving specialized areas of the law, both
in earthquake safety (Alquist-Priolo) and environmental issues (California
Environmental Quality Act), and a case that involves a city and a university,
a slam-dunk final decision, in hindsight, probably was unreasonable to expect
from a judge with little prior judicial experience in these areas.
So finally, this injunction may well be nothing more than a normal legal procedure
designed to give all parties - and the judge - time to prepare
for and conduct an orderly and effective trial. Of course other possibilities
can be suggested too - but the injunction itself provides no insight as to
what those might be.
©Copyright 2006, BearInsider.com and Scout.com.
All rights reserved.
If you haven't done so already, subscribe to The Bear Insider
so you can participate in this active online Cal community and get access
to the members-only content from the nation-wide Scout.com network.
Bear Insider staff writers visit the Insider discussion board regularly,
and are available to discuss questions you may have about this article and Cal Athletics.