A panel of California appellate court judges is expected to decide within the next week whether to impose an injunction to prevent the construction of a student athletic center near Memorial Stadium during the appeal of a lawsuit against the university.

The university has been engaged in a legal battle with the city of Berkeley, Panoramic Hill Association and California Oak Foundation over the construction of the center for more than a year and a half.

Last month, Alameda Superior Court Judge Barbara J. Miller ruled in favor of the university, saying they had cleared all of the legal roadblocks that had stalled the construction of the center.

The Panoramic Hill Association and the California Oak Foundation have appealed the ruling and requested that another injunction be imposed.

Several factors that could have an effect on the outcome of the appeals case have changed since Miller presided over the trial.

The most significant change is the absence of the city of Berkeley on the petitioners' side. As the largest and most influential of the three petitioners, the city provided the parties with a credibility that may diminish without them.

The other major question is whether both of the appealing parties will continue with the appeals process if the court does not impose another injunction, or if the court imposes an injunction but requires that the petitioners post a bond to offset the costs the delay in construction has caused the university.

The appellate court will decide whether to impose an injunction on construction during the appeals process based on the effects an injunction or lack thereof would have on each party in the suit and on which party it deems more likely to be the prevailing party at the conclusion of the suit.

In their briefs to the appeals court last week, both the appealing parties and the university claim that they are likely to prevail in the appeal and that they would suffer significantly more harm than the other party.

The petitioners argued it is necessary for the court to keep the injunction in place since without it the university will be able to remove the oak trees they are fighting to save. They pointed out that the existence of the grove is crucial to their case.

The university argued the current injunction that has prevented the construction of the center during the 19-month trial had already caused significant damage and that further delay would be even more harmful. The brief discussed both the economic costs of delay, which is currently reported to be more than $11 million, and the impact the delay in the completion of the center has on the safety of those who would use the center.

The university also said the extended delay in being able to use the athletic center has caused significant damage. It notes that currently, a number of Cal sports teams must use facilities that are not seismically safe and are inadequate when compared to those of universities with comparable athletic programs.

Based on this, it argues that the delay in building the center is keeping student athletes and university employees in "seismically poor" facilities and also negatively impacting Cal's athletic recruitment efforts. It also cites the importance of the athletic programs in attracting donations and raising the prestige and name recognition of a school.

Neither party made significant changes to the previous legal arguments they made during the first trial.

The university argued that they are in full compliance with environmental quality and earthquake zoning laws and that the UC Board of Regents and UC Berkeley officials have followed all proper protocol for approving the construction project.

The petitioners continued to claim that the university is actually in violation of environmental and earthquake laws and did not follow proper procedures when approving the construction of the center.

The petitioners have also requested that Miller throw out the current judgement and grant a new trial. A hearing for the request is set for next Tuesday.

Tags: STUDENT-ATHLETE HIGH PERFORMANCE CENTER, LAWSUITS, APPEAL, PAUL FOGEL