Federal court upholds Wal-Mart ban
Federal court upholds Wal-Mart ban
For the third time, Turlock lawlimiting big-box retailers survives
By MICHAEL R. SHEA
BEE STAFF WRITER
Last Updated: July 4, 2006, 07:26:28 AM PDT
TURLOCK — A federal court in Fresno ruled on Monday that the city's ordinance barring big-box retailers doesn't infringe on Wal-Mart's "constitutional or other rights." It's the city's third courtroom win against the retail giant.
Wal-Mart sued Turlock soon after the City Council unanimously passed an ordinance in 2004 barring a 225,000-square-foot supercenter the corporation planned for Countryside Drive, off Highway 99. The council said the operation would cause substantial traffic congestion and result in undue environmental damage.
Wal-Mart lost in Stanislaus County Superior Court in 2004 and appealed the case to the 5th District Court of Appeal in Fresno, which ruled against the corporation in April. The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, also in Fresno, mirrored the other courts' rulings on Monday.
"I'm extremely pleased and feel extremely vindicated," said Mayor Curt Andre. "Three courts of law have ruled in favor of a city setting its traffic standards and being able to develop without the fear of being overruled by a monster corporation or any special interest, for that matter."
Wal-Mart has the option to appeal the federal ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco. The retail giant already has petitioned to have the state appellate case reviewed by the state Supreme Court.
"We are disappointed with the judgment, and given the length of the opinion, 64 pages or so, we're going to have to study it before we determine our next step," said Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley.
Turlock attorneys said if Wal-Mart decides to appeal the federal case, the Bentonville, Ark.- based retailer would be playing with fire as an unfavorable ruling would apply to much of the Western United States. On the state level, the Supreme Court has not decided whether it will hear the case.
"Frankly, I don't expect (the state Supreme Court) to grant review because it's not a decision that should rise to the level of its attention," said Ben Fay, a partner in Oakland-based Jarvis, Fay & Doporto, which is representing Turlock in the case.
In September 2003, the city passed an ordinance prohibiting "discount superstores" greater than 100,000 square feet that devote more than 5 percent of the sales floor to nontaxable or grocery items.
Wal-Mart alleged the city was in collusion with existing area grocers such as Raley's, Safeway Inc. and Save Mart Supermarkets. The motivation, the retailer argued, was to keep an "out-of-state" business — Wal-Mart — out of Turlock.
Monday's ruling was a sum-mary judgment, written by Judge Oliver W. Wanger, and essentially sidesteps a full-blown trial.
"At the very root of what this means for the city and other smaller cities across the state is they have control over their own land-use planning," Fay said.
The ruling has no effect on Wal-Mart's store on Fulkerth Road.
Turlock has spent $370,000 in its legal war against Wal-Mart — none of which it can get back under California law, but some proposed legislation may change that.
Typically, the loser in a civil case pays the winner's legal costs, but state law prevents government entities from collecting. State Senate Bill 1818, if made law, would let government entities collect. The Senate has approved SB 1818 and late last month the Assembly Judiciary Committee did, too.
If the full Assembly endorses the bill, it will land on Gov. Schwarzenegger's desk. The Assembly is expected to hear the bill next month.
Bee staff writer Michael R. Shea can be reached at 667-1227 or mshea@modbee.com.
Copyright © 2006 The Modesto Bee.
For the third time, Turlock lawlimiting big-box retailers survives
By MICHAEL R. SHEA
BEE STAFF WRITER
Last Updated: July 4, 2006, 07:26:28 AM PDT
TURLOCK — A federal court in Fresno ruled on Monday that the city's ordinance barring big-box retailers doesn't infringe on Wal-Mart's "constitutional or other rights." It's the city's third courtroom win against the retail giant.
Wal-Mart sued Turlock soon after the City Council unanimously passed an ordinance in 2004 barring a 225,000-square-foot supercenter the corporation planned for Countryside Drive, off Highway 99. The council said the operation would cause substantial traffic congestion and result in undue environmental damage.
Wal-Mart lost in Stanislaus County Superior Court in 2004 and appealed the case to the 5th District Court of Appeal in Fresno, which ruled against the corporation in April. The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, also in Fresno, mirrored the other courts' rulings on Monday.
"I'm extremely pleased and feel extremely vindicated," said Mayor Curt Andre. "Three courts of law have ruled in favor of a city setting its traffic standards and being able to develop without the fear of being overruled by a monster corporation or any special interest, for that matter."
Wal-Mart has the option to appeal the federal ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco. The retail giant already has petitioned to have the state appellate case reviewed by the state Supreme Court.
"We are disappointed with the judgment, and given the length of the opinion, 64 pages or so, we're going to have to study it before we determine our next step," said Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley.
Turlock attorneys said if Wal-Mart decides to appeal the federal case, the Bentonville, Ark.- based retailer would be playing with fire as an unfavorable ruling would apply to much of the Western United States. On the state level, the Supreme Court has not decided whether it will hear the case.
"Frankly, I don't expect (the state Supreme Court) to grant review because it's not a decision that should rise to the level of its attention," said Ben Fay, a partner in Oakland-based Jarvis, Fay & Doporto, which is representing Turlock in the case.
In September 2003, the city passed an ordinance prohibiting "discount superstores" greater than 100,000 square feet that devote more than 5 percent of the sales floor to nontaxable or grocery items.
Wal-Mart alleged the city was in collusion with existing area grocers such as Raley's, Safeway Inc. and Save Mart Supermarkets. The motivation, the retailer argued, was to keep an "out-of-state" business — Wal-Mart — out of Turlock.
Monday's ruling was a sum-mary judgment, written by Judge Oliver W. Wanger, and essentially sidesteps a full-blown trial.
"At the very root of what this means for the city and other smaller cities across the state is they have control over their own land-use planning," Fay said.
The ruling has no effect on Wal-Mart's store on Fulkerth Road.
Turlock has spent $370,000 in its legal war against Wal-Mart — none of which it can get back under California law, but some proposed legislation may change that.
Typically, the loser in a civil case pays the winner's legal costs, but state law prevents government entities from collecting. State Senate Bill 1818, if made law, would let government entities collect. The Senate has approved SB 1818 and late last month the Assembly Judiciary Committee did, too.
If the full Assembly endorses the bill, it will land on Gov. Schwarzenegger's desk. The Assembly is expected to hear the bill next month.
Bee staff writer Michael R. Shea can be reached at 667-1227 or mshea@modbee.com.
Copyright © 2006 The Modesto Bee.
posted by Walking Contradiction at 4:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home