Campus wins court ruling on
Japanese garden sale, extends sale process
By Phil Hampton, May 17, 2012
A Los
Angeles Superior Court judge has rejected a request for a temporary restraining
order to block UCLA's sale of the Hannah Carter Japanese Garden. While the May
17 ruling confirms UCLA's right to proceed with the sale of the property at
10619 Bellagio Rd. in Bel-Air, UCLA announced that it will extend the period
during which prospective buyers can submit bids. "Even though we are
confident that all appropriate steps have been followed and that the meritless
lawsuit will be dismissed, it is important that we minimize any legal
impediments before we complete the bidding and sale process," said UCLA
Administrative Vice Chancellor Jack Powazek.
Sealed
bids for the garden and a residence on a separate adjacent lot in Bel-Air had
been due on May 22 and were scheduled to be publicly opened on May 23. Campus
officials said the bidding process will be extended until Aug. 15… The basis for the judge's decision to deny
the temporary restraining order was that the plaintiffs did not have a
likelihood of success on the merits of the lawsuit…
Full
release at
==
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit could appeal, presumably.
Indeed, not giving a temporary restraining order doesn’t end the possibility of
some later decision. That point is indirectly acknowledged in the media release
above in the text about minimizing legal impediments. There is no claim in the
release that no impediments remain. Note that the extension of time for bids by
UCLA suggests a lack of bids and/or that the lawsuit caused potential bidders
to be hesitant.
As indicated in prior blog posts on this matter, the UCLA
Faculty Association does not have a position on the sale of the garden. But it has also been noted that entering into
discussion with concerned groups could be a better approach than legal battles.
See http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2012/05/winston-churchill-on-japanese-garden.html.
There are also concerns about the impact of a decision by the university to
undo a pledge to a major donor to maintain the property in perpetuity. Perhaps
the pledge should not have been made – but it was. And so far, the university
has prevailed on the issue of the legality of undoing the pledge – but so what?
If the university plans to rely in the future more heavily on major donations
(and it does), there are reasons for caution here and a more amicable outcome so that future donors do not become concerned that their wishes ultimately will not be carried out by the university: “Throw
no stones in the well that gives you water.”
Our Mothers’ Day post on this blog included a World War I
song appropriate to the occasion. Here’s another such song appropriate for this
matter:
Update: Below is the official Los Angeles Superior Court (Santa Monica) record. It indicates another hearing in August. Legal types may want to interpret.
No comments:
Post a Comment