From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hogar v. Community Dev. Commn. of City of Escondido

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Jan 10, 2008
No. D049452 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2008)

Opinion


HOGAR DULCE HOGAR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO, Defendant and Appellant. D049452 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division January 10, 2008

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of DISCUSSION I and II.

Super. Ct. No. N078859

BENKE, Acting P. J.

THE COURT:

The opinion filed December 14, 2007, is modified as follows:

Replace the sequence of counsel listing and counsel designation with:

"Affordable Housing Advocates, Catherine A. Rodman; Kirby, Noonan, Lance and Hoge and R. Bruce Wayne for Plaintiff and Appellant.

"Jeffrey R. Epp, City Attorney, Jennifer K. McCain, Assistant City Attorney; Hogan, Guiney, Dick and Michael M. Hogan for Defendant and Appellant."

At FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND, 2. Proceedings on Remand, second paragraph, first sentence (slip opn. p. 4): delete "deemed filed under the terms of a tolling agreement the parties had entered into in December 1997" and replace with "filed in August 1998"

At FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND, 2. Proceedings on Remand, third paragraph, fifth sentence (slip opn. p. 5): insert "(county)" after "County of San Diego"; replace "per cent" with "percent"

At DISCUSSSION part II, second sentence (slip opn. p. 6): delete "motion" after "attorney fees"

At DISCUSSION part IV, A. Legal Principles, second paragraph (slip opn. p. 9): after "(2)" replace "that" with elipses " . . . "; after "(3)" replace "that Hogars" with elipses and " . . . the plaintiffs"

At DISCUSSION part VI, C. Multiplier, second paragraph, last sentence (slip. opn. p. 19): "appellate that" should read "appellate court is convinced that"

At DISCUSSION part VI, C. Multiplier, third paragraph, third sentence (slip. opn. p. 19): delete "agreed to pay the Housing Fund the full amount due under the CRL" and replace with "and county amended their tax sharing agreement"

There is no change in judgment.


Summaries of

Hogar v. Community Dev. Commn. of City of Escondido

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Jan 10, 2008
No. D049452 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2008)
Case details for

Hogar v. Community Dev. Commn. of City of Escondido

Case Details

Full title:HOGAR DULCE HOGAR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Jan 10, 2008

Citations

No. D049452 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2008)