At Defendants City of Redlands’ and LAFCO’s insistence that the Attorney General prosecute the action or grant leave for COMET to continue to do so, its lawyer sent an Application and proposed First Amended Complaint to the Attorney General’s Los Angeles office.
On the last day to do so, Defendants – both represented by the same Best, Best and Krieger office – served and filed their opposition. It contained several arguments, one misstating the actual allegations of the complaint, but provided very little or no legal support of its positions that COMET’s lawsuit is either too late or too early, that the “quo warranto” (“by whose authority?”) cause of action is not the proper remedy. Quo warranto actions do not have a statute of limitations, by which the lawsuit could otherwise be too late. COMET’s response: it is proper because Mentonites did not know that Redlands took to itself the “authority” to demand annexation by enacting its 1997 “Measure U” or that it has taken much territory to itself by presenting its “Annexation Agreement” to developers, demanding annexation to its city limits in exchange for water service to new developments.
COMET also replied that the “Agreement” contains eight other demands that COMET deems to be overreaching. Redlands’ demand avoids Mentone’s vote whether to be annexed or not (which is authorized by Government Code section 57075 and following sections). Because the quo warranto procedure is most often used to challenge someone holding an office without authority (but still available in the manner that COMET is using it), defendants also argue that it would “disrupt governmental operations” and therefore not be in the public interest. COMET’s response states that no disruption would be caused by Redlands’ being ordered to cease using its Annexation “Agreement,” demanding annexation and the eight other offending parts, and that the relief it seeks is of importance to every unincorporated area that is in the sphere of influence of a city which provides utility services. To COMET’s knowledge, there is no other such situation existing or which has existed in California.
Defendants also argue that there is no “substantial question of law or fact.” COMET countered that Redlands’ alleged illegal extortion of Mentone territory in exchange for water, and LAFCO’s ratification of that illegal action, is indeed a substantial question of law or fact. Defendants also argued that the same facts are alleged in other causes of action and therefore the quo warranto is unnecessary and that “extortion” is not a proper basis for a quo warranto action. COMET replied that it is required to plead all available causes of action on the facts.
Defendants next argued that COMET shouldn’t receive water service without being a part of the City and its regulations, to which COMET replied that Redlands had applied to LAFCO to do so many years ago and actually provided water for many years without demanding annexation, beginning in 1997. Defendants also argued that COMET hasn’t proven its case in its Complaint; COMET replied that it need not do so. Defendants also argued that COMET hasn’t provided any facts showing that the annexations were completed, and admit that “in the future, should the City complete any additional annexation of portions of Mentone, COMET would be on much firmer ground to challenge such annexations” by the quo warranto procedure. COMET’s reply quoted portions of the Complaint and its Application stating that it has lost territory by Redlands’ demanded annexations.
Defendants’ opposition did not oppose the other cause of action – “Unfair Business Practices” – that COMET requested leave to continue prosecuting. Nor did it address COMET’s allegations of unlawful and exorbitant fees that Redlands charges developers – for fire, police, library, parks, City buildings, and so on, that do not benefit Mentone in any way and are probably passed along to the next owners.
The Application, Opposition and Reply will be looked over by Los Angeles’ Deputy Attorney General, who will make their recommendation; then it will be forwarded to Sacramento for Attorney General Xavier Becerra to make the final determination. The Los Angeles Deputy Attorney General could not give a time estimate for this decision to take place. COMET has granted defendants 30 days to answer after COMET files its First Amended Complaint.
In the meantime, COMET presented a claim for damages to the City of Redlands, which had 45 days to respond. It responded within three days that COMET’s claim was late and invited COMET to file an application for leave to file a late claim, which COMET’s attorney did. After 45 days, whether Redlands allows the late claim or not, COMET may add Mentone’s money damages to its suit.
Also, Tom’s Burgers is proceeding toward completion; however, there is no estimated timeline.
Mentone Matters will continue to keep you up to date on the progress of the lawsuit.