As reported earlier, the intervenors in the City of Eugene case filed a motion with the court to "vacate" the City of Eugene judgement. A copy of the motion to vacate can be found here. Note in particular, footnote 4, which seems to put the plaintiffs in the City of Eugene case in an interesting predicament. If they contest the motion, it seems to say that the City of Eugene case is precedential, which the Supreme Court seems to be denying in mooting the City of Eugene appeal. I'd like to think this is the legal equivalent of the "heads we win, tails you lose" position that the employers and the PERB thought they'd have with the "settlement". We're taking back the bullets now.
P.S. Thanks to JRS from the OPDG group for tracking down this motion. I put it into pdf form, which makes it more universally easy to read.
P.S. Thanks to JRS from the OPDG group for tracking down this motion. I put it into pdf form, which makes it more universally easy to read.
No comments:
Post a Comment