San Francisco—The California Supreme Court today issued an order in California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos (S194861), directing the parties to show cause why the relief sought in the petition for a writ of mandate should not be granted. This case involves the validity of recent legislation (Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess. 2011-2012, ch. 5 [Assem. Bill No. 26 X1)]; Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess. 2011-2012, ch. 6 [Assem. Bill No. 27 X1]), dissolving and reenacting with changes the statutory framework for redevelopment agencies throughout California.
The court allowed the first statute to remain in effect insofar as it precludes existing redevelopment agencies from incurring new indebtedness, transferring assets, acquiring real property, entering into new contracts or modifying existing contracts, entering into new partnerships, adopting or amending redevelopment plans, etc., but it stayed enforcement of both statutes in all other respects.
The court established an expedited briefing schedule designed to facilitate oral argument as early as possible in 2011, and a decision before January 15, 2012.
A copy of the court’s order follows.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION et al., Petitioners,
ANA MATOSANTOS, as Director, etc. et al., Respondents.
The request for a stay of chapter 5, Statutes 2011, First Extraordinary Session (Assembly Bill No. 26 X1) is granted, except that the request to stay Division 24, Part 1.8 of the Health and Safety Code (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 34161-34167) is denied. The request for a stay of chapter 6, Statutes 2011, First Extraordinary Session (Assembly Bill No. 27 X1) is granted.
Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance, John Chiang, Controller of the State of California, and Patrick O’Connell, Auditor-Controller of the County of Alameda, are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE before this court, when the above matter is called on calendar, why the relief sought by petitioners should not be granted.
The return is to be served and filed by respondents on or before September 9, 2011.
A reply may be served and filed by petitioners on or before September 24, 2011.
Any application to file an amicus curiae brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, may be served and filed on or before September 30, 2011.
Any reply to an amicus brief may be served and filed on or before October 7, 2011.
The court does not contemplate extending any time set out above. The briefing schedule is designed to facilitate oral argument as early as possible in 2011, and a decision before January 15, 2012.
Kennard, J., is of the opinion a stay should not be issued.