COMET FILES APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

C.O.M.E.T. (Citizens [or Community] of Mentone Empowered Together)’s counsel filed its first Brief in its appeal of the court’s granting of Redlands’ Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication [Ed.’s note: Judgment without a trial] on September 19, 2023. “The Honorable Donald Alvarez, had agreed with all of Redlands’ points and effectively threw out the case against Redlands,” COMET’s counsel said.

COMET Brief first appealed the judge’s decision on COMET’s allegations of Civil Extortion: Redlands’ threat of injury to property being developed, by Redlands’ refusal to provide new water and, where required, sewer services, unless the developer first agreed to annex the property into Redlands’ city limits. “The judge had first agreed with Redlands that COMET had not alleged threat of prosecution and gave COMET an opportunity to allege facts of threat of prosecution for not signing the annexation “Agreements”; however, this was never our allegation,” stated COMET’s counsel. “Then the judge ruled that Redlands did not injure property or acquire property but never ruled on our allegations of Redlands’ threat of injury to property,” COMET”s counsel added.

The next point in the appellate Brief states that Redlands argued that COMET had not filed a timely reverse validation action. “A challenge to an annexation was required to be brought within 60 days of the action,” COMET’s counsel stated,” “and our Original Complaint attached an annexation “Agreement” dated within two weeks of it being filed. Thus, our challenge to that annexation and successive annexations was timely. Throughout the case Redlands made the same claim, and the judge agreed, despite ongoing annexations and several copies of the annexation “Agreement” present in the files.

“He then threw out other causes of action, such as Fraud and Declaratory Relief, based on ‘no reverse validation,’ but not on the merits of those causes of action,” she added.

“Additionally, he had decided early on that Redlands did not have the ‘immunity’ from a lawsuit that it claimed, and then in his last ruling reversed himself without explanation,” she continued. The brief also states that the judge had apparently decided that COMET had all four types of “standing,, [Ed.’s note: the right to bring the action] and then in his last ruling decided that COMET had “associational” standing by virtue of its members having the right to sue. He stated he did not need to address COMET’s taxpayer, common interest or public benefit types of standing, although COMET is a registered Public Benefit Corporation. Conveniently, the brief continues Redlands had only provided evidence on associational standing,” she continued.

The Brief’s listing of points includes that the judge did not rule on Redlands’ “pre”-annexations; the Brief states that the Code and Supreme Court case law requires annexed properties to be “contiguous,” or next door to each other, at the time of annexation, but Redlands requires property owners to agree to annex later, when the properties are next door to each other, a violation of law..

The Brief also argues that the judge did not address Redlands’ demanded Development Impact Fees or DIFs for fire, police, library services and parks, for which Mentone property owners also pay the County.

“Redlands’ evidence in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication was incompetent,” COMET”s counsel added. “It attached questions to COMET by one party but COMET’s answers to another party’s questions, and they were different questions; there were other, similar flaws. If any such flaws occur, the Motion must be denied,” she concluded. The Brief also states that the judge erroneously refused to consider COMET’s evidence which was contrary to that which Redlands provided, based on a technicality that the court did not impose on Redlands in ruling on its earlier document.

The Brief’s final point was that Redlands continues to annex properties illegally, but the judge refused to consider the “continuing violations of law” doctrine, that would have eliminated the need for a timely reverse validation action.

The Brief’s historical facts included Redlands’ annexing Mentone territory beginning in 1888, when it took property west of Wabash, from Lugonia South to Brockton; down through its 1956 annexation of Mill Creek; and its 1997 enactment of “Measure U,” which it claims authorizes its present demands for annexation in exchange for water and sewer services.

Redlands’ counsel has the opportunity to oppose the Brief’s points and then COMET has the final word in its Reply brief, due sometime in January.