HMB attorneys describe appeal strategy

Half Moon Bay’s new appeals attorneys have described the basis for their appeal of the Yamagiwa decision, reports Julia Scott in the County Times.

Rather than dispute the facts in Walker’s judgment, which cites many instances of the Beachwood property east of Highway 1 containing standing pools of water before Keenan acquired it in 1993, the lawyers intend to use those facts to show that Keenan should have known the land had drainage problems before buying it for $1 million in a foreclosure sale. If the lawyers can prove that Keenan should have known of the risks of developing that property and chose to ignore them, they can argue that the judge was wrong to find against the city — or that the city, at least, did not deserve to be punished to the tune of $40 million, after lawyers’ fees and other expenses — four times Half Moon Bay’s annual budget of $10 million.
...
Keenan’s attorney, Edward Burg, called the city’s argument "ridiculous."

"The city itself decided in 2000 that new wetlands had developed on the property between 1990 and 2000. The city also decided in 2000 that what it knew in 2000 was not known or knowable previously," he said, quoting from the document the City Council drafted to deny Keenan a development permit in 2000.
...
The city’s lawyers must file a notice of appeal within 30 days of a final judgment Walker will likely issue in January or February. They hope the 9th Circuit Court will reverse Walker’s judgment. Failing that, they hope the case will be remanded to Walker’s court with instructions that he retry the case and apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

But in the Yamagiwa decision, Judge Walker lays out plenty of evidence that it was clear what was happening on the property when Keenan bought it, and in the period before Chop Keenan finally decided it might be a good idea to drain the land.

The County Times article does a good job of laying out the attorneys’ presentation of their case and you should follow the link and read the story.