Blogging Bayport Alameda

March 18, 2009

Affirmation and consolidation

Filed under: Alameda, School — Tags: — Lauren Do @ 7:22 am

Yesterday, Judge Kenneth Mark Burr, the judge in the Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District case affirmed his earlier tentative ruling denying the motion for summary judg(e)ment made by the Plaintiffs.   In addition to the ruling, he also went ahead and consolidated the two cases — Beery and Borikas — into one larger case against the school district with a trial date set for September of this year.

The school district sent out a press release yesterday, highlights from that press release:

…“We are very pleased that Judge Burr ruled against the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment,” said Superintendent Kirsten Vital. “We are particularly heartened that he specifically indicated that the requirement that the tax be applied ‘uniformly’ only requires that the tax be applied uniformly to all parcels within the same classification and not identically to every parcel regardless of its size or use,” she continued.

“On behalf of the School Board, I’d like to reiterate our commitment to vigorously defend Measure H,” stated AUSD Board President Mike McMahon. “Measure H is critically important to our schools, the students and our greater community,” he said…

Michele Ellson has some more information, including a quote from Borikas’s lawyer, David Brillant:

I am disappointed in the ruling but we have a trial date on September 17, 2009 so it looks as if this matter is going to be subject to a trial.  However, Mr. Beery’s attorney was in the  courtroom and after the hearing, we had a conference with all attorneys and he advised the Court that Mr. Beery would be filing his own motion for summary judgment.  So, even before we get to a full trial on the merits of this case, there will be a second shot at summarily defeating this illegal tax.

I have to read over the Beery complaint again to see what questions of law are different than in the Borikas complaint, if I can remember correctly at the very least Beery’s lawyer had made the attempt within the complaint to explain why they believed that Measure H was not uniform, so maybe there is where the difference lies.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: