Laserfiche WebLink
1 2 . Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" to this declaration is a <br /> 2 copy of a letter sent to certain of the respondents on December <br /> 3 9, 1987. <br /> 4 3. on December 9, 1987, I presented the Petition for the Writ <br /> 5 of Mandate along with the supporting documents to the San Joaquin <br /> 6 County Clerk ' s office and was told that before the Petition could <br /> 7 be accepted for filing it had to be presented to the research <br /> 8 attorneys for review. At that time I informed the clerk that I <br /> 9 did not want the Alternate Writ of Mandate issued because I was <br /> 10 attempting to get a date that was convenient for the Respondents <br /> 11 and that I would be out of town and, therefore, I did not want a <br /> 12 date set and the Alternate Writ of Mandate issued. <br /> 13 4. I did not discover that the Alternate Writ had been issued <br /> 14 and a date set for hearing until January 8, 1988. <br /> 15 5 . My review of the facts and the law regarding this <br /> 16 underlying dispute in this action has revealed the following: <br /> 17 A. Each of the governmental agencies named as Respondents <br /> 18 has the authority to either order the clean-up of the property or <br /> 19 to grant permission for the procedures that need to be taken in <br /> 20 order to have the property cleaned up. <br /> 21 B . The result of overlapping jurisdiction by the <br /> 22 governmental authorities combined with a dispute between the <br /> 23 present and former owners of the site complained of has resulted <br /> 24 in a classic case of fingerpointing , with the Respondents all <br /> 25 taking the position that their failure to act is the result of <br /> 26 some action or lack of action by one or more of the other <br /> 27 Respondents . <br /> 28 C. This is , therefore, a case where the Petitioners may <br /> 2 <br />