From the Associated Press:
SAN FRANCISCO - A San Joaquin Valley city's ordinance barring certain big-box retailers survived another legal challenge from Wal-Mart on Wednesday after the California Supreme Court declined to take the case.The court did not say why it decided not to hear Wal-Mart's claim that the Turlock City Council exceeded its police powers and violated state environmental laws when it passed a 2004 zoning law that banned stores over 100,000 square feet that devoted at least 5 percent of their space to groceries.
Although the decision ended Wal-Mart's claim against the city in state court, the Arkansas-based retail chain still has a separate case in federal court arguing that the Turlock ordinance violates the equal protection and commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
"We are still interested in doing business in Turlock because the marketing analysis indicates a strong demand for a Supercenter in Turlock," John Simley, a Wal-Mart spokesman said Wednesday.
The Supreme Court's decision to turn down the case was the fourth time a court had sided with the city. Last week, a U.S. District Court judge in Fresno ruled that Turlock's zoning law did not infringe on the company's constitutional rights. Both Simley and Rick Jarvis, a lawyer representing Turlock, said that if the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the federal case on appeal, a ruling would set a precedent that could affect Wal-Mart's presence in nine Western states."All this litigation has resulted in is clear judicial authority that other cities can rely on to take the same track that Turlock has taken," Jarvis said.
Wal-Mart started talking with Turlock officials in 2002 about building a 225,000-square-foot Supercenter. The City Council passed the zoning ordinance after union leaders and grocery store representatives started lobbying against the proposed store.
Turlock is 85 miles southeast of San Francisco.
Posted by - July 13, 2006 06:17 PM - In The News