This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Government
Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus

Winfield International Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco

Published: Apr. 12, 2019 | Filing Date: Mar. 20, 2017 |

Case number: CPF-17-515532 Settlement –  $500,000

Judge

Ronald E. Quidachay

Court

San Francisco County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Edward W. Suman
(Law Offices of Edward W. Suman)


Defendant

Dennis J. Herrera
(San Francisco Public Utilities Commission)

Kristen A. Jensen
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)


Facts

Winfield International Inc. filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate against the City and County of San Francisco in relation to a Notice of Penalty issued by respondent against Winfield.

Contentions

PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS: Winfield alleged respondent issued a Notice of Penalty for alleged violations of the Below Market Rate program administered by the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development. Winfield alleged it was wrongfully assessed a daily administrative penalty for non-compliance with inclusionary housing requirements, and claimed it was wrongfully denied the option to pay fees in-lieu of compliance pursuant to respondent's program. Winfield claimed the penalties issued totaled over $245,000, were issued without notice, and were retroactive.

RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS: Respondents claimed Winfield was not in compliance with BMR conditions, its claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and the parties previously litigated the same issues such that res judicata bars Winfield's claims. Respondents contended its penalties and notice were proper.

Result

The parties agreed to a settlement in which Winfield agreed to pay $500,000 to respondents.


#131427

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390