Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

BERKELEY COMM. HLTH. PROJ. v. CITY, BERKELEY

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Jul 17, 1997

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Case Information

CITATION CODES

citation codes

DOCKET NO.

No. 95-16060

Attorney(S)

COUNSEL Manuela Albuquerque, City Attorney (argued); Matthew J. Orebic, Deputy City Attorney; and Bruce A. Soublet, Deputy City Attorney, Berkeley, California, for the appellants. Alan L. Schlosser, ACLU Foundation Of Northern California, San Francisco, California (argued); Harry B. Bremond, Sara D. Harrington, Sandy L. Roth, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich Rosati, Palo Alto, California; James B. Chanin, Berkeley-Albany-Richmond-Kensington Chapter Of The ACLU, Berkeley, California; and Osha Neumann, Berkeley, California, for the appellees. Walter A. Smith, Jr., Hogan Hartson, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae National Law Center on Homelessness Poverty. Marcia Rosen, Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Of The San Francisco Bay Area, San Francisco, California, for amici curiae Coalition on Homelessness (San Francisco), American Jewish Congress, Californians for Justice, Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, Greenpeace, Guatemala News and Information Bureau and Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay area. Stephanie J. Finelli, Sacramento, California, for amicus curiae Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. H. Joseph Escher, III, Howard, Rice, Nemorovski, Canady, Falk Rabkin, San Francisco, California, for amicus curiae American Alliance for Rights Responsibilities. John G. Barisone, Atchison, Anderson, Hurley Barisone, Santa Cruz, California, for amici curiae California cities and counties. Thomas F. Gede, Special Assistant Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for amicus curiae State of California.

JUDGES

Otto Richard Skopil

Betty Binns Fletcher

ACTS

No Acts

See more information ... Less ...

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

ORDER

The City of Berkeley appeals the district court's decision to issue a preliminary injunction preventing the city from enforcing an ordinance regulating solicitation on city sidewalks. See Berkeley Community Health Project v. City of Berkeley, 902 F. Supp. 1084, 1091 (N.D. Cal. 1995). After argument, the parties reached a settlement, and petitioned this court to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 42(b). We remanded to the district court for its approval of the settlement, which included the parties' request to vacate the preliminary injunction, dismiss the action with prejudice, and award attorney's fees. The district court agreed to the parties' requests. Because the district court has vacated its preliminary injunction, this appeal is dismissed as moot. Costs shall be allocated pursuant to the terms of the stipulation. A certified copy of this order, sent to the district court, shall act as and for the mandate of this court.

DISMISSED.