Laserfiche WebLink
Services of Mead Data Central, Eric. - <br /> PAGE 7 <br /> r 1991 U.S. App, LEXIS 30233, *13 <br /> whether there had been a taKinq' <br /> by Phys'cal occupation -- the court wanted; to <br /> know4more about the Government's long-range intentions; and <br /> (3). 'the activities ;of the State of Oalifornia werenot attributable to th <br /> Government for purposes of takings last <br /> a <br /> The Government's'motion for sum Imary Judgment was granted an points one and <br /> three. Point two:' was left for trial -- the plaintiffs' motion for summary <br /> Judgment on the issue of taKing1by physical occupation was denied. <br />(' OBoth before and afte • the trial: court's disposition of the summary judgment <br /> Motions in Hendler ;I, the discovery skirmishes continued, 80 h parties continued <br /> to engage in discovery throughobt the briefing period prior to Hendler I. do <br /> December 51 1985'x the Claims Cou" rt granted the Government.'s first motion to <br /> compel answers to its interrogatories. `The Government believed plaintiffs' <br /> responses to be inadequate acrd r'n march 25, 1986 again moved to compel answers <br /> Cwtdl' <br /> to: its interrogatories, <br /> ,.:on January 'f4 1:987:, .the count again tiranted a Government motion to :comp ei <br /> answers to interrogatories. Ort March 1`6, 1987. the Government moved... to dismiss <br /> Plaintiffs ' suit4tir failure; to comply with the January 14 order. Plaintiffs <br /> submitted their responses on Match 26. The Government found the responses ' <br /> inadequate and again sought disiiiissal. On April 30, the court issued a th rd <br /> order to compela full ;risponse,jto the Government.'s interrogatories. Plaintiffs <br /> responded on May;,14 and again the Government deemed the responses inadequate. On <br /> MO 26, the Government :agafm filed a motion to dismiss. <br /> A.: <br /> ;"D i s cove ry cloned Auq"t 14 1987. on 4ctobe r 21 , 1987, now before a pew <br /> ,judge, the paroles argued thee motion to dismiss, On. September 16. 1988, <br /> plaintiffs moVedtto suspend thepr_oeedings on the basis of neva #nfo'rmati°orti <br /> indicating that theGl7vern�ten't intended to install extracti n wells [{n the <br /> f <br /> property. The Government 041-ttcte+d and staved for sanctions. -. <br /> In December 1989, over two: years after the motion was argued, thie. jradge; <br /> granted the 6ayetnment's; motionl4 a dismiss pursuant to Rule; 37, bringing. this; <br /> aacrimanious procedural fray to ap: .abrupt hart. Hendler Ii. <br /> ;A . E0 51 man's home may be his castle, but that does not keep the <br /> Government from ta.k.inq it. U. art incident to its. ;sovereignty, the Government has <br /> tho authority tbtake7privat.e property for a public purpose. .In England, when. <br /> the Xinq did sti, tI. ayment illi what was taken was, at least before T4agna Carta,, a- <br /> Sometime thing, and larq.e. y at. the discretion of the soYereiq ON See 1 <br /> Nichols, Thi** Law! of Eminent I)ctin § 2 (1917) . In the: United States, the <br /> Constitution does not. leave that issue to the sovereign's good will. The ringinq. <br /> phrases of the Fiftkt Amendment b0ndlude with the simple statesrent: "hoe Sh I1 <br /> prz°oats property be takers iter public use, without :fust COO t1satl.on..!' <br /> Cotlst. amend. <br /> �f 1 <br /> ;At the time of the writi <br />