On the use of lawsuits for the purpose of delay

The new and improved  "spin" regarding new hwy 1 lawsuits, #3 (clean water) and #4 (endangered species). It's all part of the plan to continue to delay the Hwy 1 widening project, now over 30 years in the planning. Almost as bad as the actual commute traffic !

Opponents had to give notice they were considering a lawsuit. It's established law that CalTrans posts a federal statute of limitations notice in the Federal Register for ALL projects in Calif. Every enviro lawyer in the country knows this. It's a "put up or shut-up" notice. Any who watches TV cop shows knows about statute of limitations in legal matters. You have to make your claim and not string anyone along indefinitely. Although the opponents, with every imaginable last minute question, concocted alternatives and speculation about dark plots, does just that--string everyone along.

See www.federalregister.gov and search for "Caltrans", or "CalTrans statute of limitations" and you

will find dozens of listed projects statewide. 

The posting about Hwy 1 went up 12/10/2014.

 See:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/12/10/2014-28920/notice-of-final-federal-agency-actions-on-proposed-highway-in-california

Here's the opponents spin:

1) Barred by this statue from suing and this forced their hands. True-- a statute is designed to make sure litigation does not stretch out indefinably when project decisions have to be made. This cuts to the core of opponents strategy-- a project delayed is often a project denied, not on its merits but because funding has been lost, or the public gives up.

2. If Caltrans had not published its notice in the Federal Register, we may never have considered a federal suit. The Federal Register notice made us look at whether there was a reason that Caltrans would want to bar us from filing a federal suit.

This statement is totally false. All lawyers look at statute of limitation dates. It is routine and the posting is the law. CalTrans posts on ALL Calif projects. The reason opponents would be barred from filing a federal lawsuit is the statute sets a deadline. And the opponents are delay and lawsuit happy, doing everything they can to string the widening along. Not have considered a lawsuit? Ha !  That's all they do--dream up every imaginable lawsuit delay.

3. Another reason opponents filed both actions to notice a 60 lawsuit is they hedged their bets on a loss on lawsuit #2 in San Mateo Superior court on 3/10/15. Opponents seek any delay and any possible legal objection. Literally throwing objections against the wall to see what sticks.

In fact, opponents had both lawsuit notices 3 and 4 prepared and in the mail on March 5, five days before they knew they lost everything on lawsuit #2.

( Lawsuit #3 (clean water) mailed March 5; Lawsuit #4 (endangered species) mailed March 5. )

I would also imagine the writing of lawsuit 3 and 4 notices started a full month before the lawsuit 2 decision, sometime in February. Therefore any self-serving claim that opponents' hand was forced, they did not know what was going on, or the statute posting concealed law violations is patently false. The statute posting is routine (it was done for San Pedro Creek bridge replacement and that did not "conceal" anything)

Submitted by Jim Wagner