Published Opinions

 

  • County of Sonoma v. Cohen (2015) 235 Cal. App. 4th 42

  • Goldfarb and Lipman successfully represented the County of Sonoma in an action arising out of California's redevelopment dissolution law. The dispute involved the issue of whether the dissolution law permitted the County to re-enter into enforceable agreements for redevelopment activities, after the dissolution law passed. The County prevailed in Sacramento Superior Court on a Petition for Writ of Mandate. The State Department of Finance appealed, and the trial court's decision in the County's favor was recently affirmed in a published decision from the Third District Court of Appeal.
  • Cedar Fair L.P. v. City of Santa Clara (2011)

  • 194 Cal.App.4th 1150 Goldfarb & Lipman represented the City of Santa Clara and its Redevelopment Agency in a case concerning whether or not CEQA required analysis of a proposed development project’s potential environmental impacts before the City and Agency could approve a non-binding “Term Sheet” committing the City and Agency to exclusive negotiations but preserving full discretion to the City and Agency to accept, modify, or reject the development proposal.
  • Trinity Park L.P. v. City of Sunnyvale (2011)

  • 193 Cal.App.4th 1014. Goldfarb & Lipman represented the City of Sunnyvale in a case regarding the statute of limitations for challenging  the City’s requirement that a new housing development project include affordable housing units.
  • Glendale Redevelopment Agency v. County of Los Angeles (2010)

  • 184 Cal.App.4th 1388. Goldfarb & Lipman represented the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Compton in a case concerning the County Auditor's obligation to accept corrections to an agency's timely-filed but incorrect Statement of Indebtedness.
  • North Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica (9th Cir. 2008)

  • 526 F.3d 378. Goldfarb & Lipman represented a city in a challenge by a developer to the city's conditions of development approval.
  • State Building & Construction Trades Council v. Duncan (2008)

  • 162 Cal.App.4th 289. Goldfarb & Lipman represented the California Redevelopment Association as amicus in a case concerning the application of prevailing wage laws to housing developments assisted with low-income housing tax credits.
  • St. Vincent's School for Boys v. City of San Rafael (2008)

  • 161 Cal.App.4th 989. Goldfarb & Lipman represented a city in a challenge to the statutory validity of the Housing Element of the city's General Plan.
  • Brandenburg v. Eureka Redevelopment Agency (2007)

  • 152 Cal.App.4th 1350. Goldfarb & Lipman represented the redevelopment agency in a case concerning the statute of limitations for actions brought under Government Code Section 1090.
  • Kaatz v. City of Seaside (2006)

  • 143 Cal.App.4th 13. Goldfarb & Lipman represented a city in litigation seeking to extend the coverage of the validation action statutes to land disposition agreements involving developer financing of government activities.