LATEST ON THE LAWSUIT

Redlands was served at its City Council meeting on March 5; it had 30 days in which to respond.  COMET’s attorney received a phone call from Redlands’ litigation counsel at Best, Best &  Krieger, regarding a required “meet and confer” before it files its demurrer, giving the attorney who filed the Complaint an opportunity to correct it. When sued, Redlands can either file an Answer or Demurrer. A demurrer is a document filed in Court for a hearing, at which the parties’ attorneys appear and argue, if necessary. The demurrer tests whether the Complaint states facts sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the causes of action (the actual requests for relief, which appear after the “Statement of Facts” in the last MM issue).  BB&K followed up the phone call with a letter outlining its reasons for demurring. The letter addressed all of the seven causes of action, suggesting various defects in each. 

For various reasons, COMET’s attorney stated she could not “meet and confer” on April 8, the suggested date, and gave Redlands extra time, during which COMET’s attorney will address the points in the letter one by one and take whatever steps might be necessary to ensure the lawsuit goes forward. 
LAFCO was served with the Complaint at its last meeting, March 20. Another litigation attorney from BB&K, but in another location, is representing LAFCO; he also called COMET’s attorney and stated his intention to go with whatever Redlands’ counsel wrote. COMET’s attorney granted them the same extension of time, although its response is not due for two to three more weeks. He did not appear to recognize any “conflict of interest” between the same firm representing both Redlands and LAFCO, who is included in the lawsuit because of what Redlands has done. Some law firms get around conflicts of interest by having different locations handle each case. 

If a demurrer is “sustained” in a court hearing, the Court may allow the Complaint to be amended – rewritten – to conform to the requirements of any of the causes of action. The defendants, Redlands and LAFCO, then have the opportunity to respond again. If, instead, the demurrer is overruled at the hearing, the Complaint stands as it is and the case continues. There is the off chance of  the Complaint being thrown out without allowing amendment, but that is rare; the Courts prefer to allow litigants time to make such corrections as are necessary to state their case, usually up to two or three times. 
If the Complaint is thrown out, the “losing” attorney may appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Riverside if there are sufficient grounds. 

MM will keep you posted on developments.