On Friday, October 25, 2024, the appellate court served its opinion in the case of C.O.M.E.T. v. Redlands, agreeing with the trial court and finding against Mentone on all points. The main issues litigated were whether Redlands had a right to demand annexation in exchange for providing new water service, which C.O.M.E.T. alleges is extortionate because Redlands is not otherwise entitled to pull Mentone into its city limits. The court disagreed with C.O.M.E.T. because it had not brought a “reverse validation” case within 60 days of a completed annexation, although C.O.M.E.T.’s complaints had attached Annexation “Agreements” dated just weeks before, in which the property developers agreed to allow annexation when the property was next door – [Ed.’s note: “contiguous” in legalese] to Redlands’ city limits. After such an executed “Agreement” became available, the trial court had already thrown out C.O.M.E.T.’s reverse validation cause of action without leave to amend.
“Redlands’ action is based on its 1997 “slow-growth” initiative, a position that is not encompassed in the law elsewhere in California; nor have I found another community that is being taken over as we are,” stated attorney Joyce Caraway, who has prosecuted the case for the past 5 1/2 years.
The appellate court also agreed with the trial court that C.O.M.E.T. lack “standing” [Ed.’s note: meaning a right to sue] because C.O.M.E.T. could not prove to the court’s satisfaction that it represented other Mentone residents and because it did not own property that was subject to Redlands’ forced annexation. The trial court had found that C.O.M.E.T. possessed “associational” standing but the appellate court reversed that finding, deciding that C.O.M.E.T. lacked any of the four types of standing. “We know people in the community and in Redlands don’t know and haven’t known what was going on with Redlands or the lawsuit; it’s because we are not a united community, such that only a few attend the C.O.M.E.T./Chamber meetings, that we don’t have the clout a city would have,” she added.
“Someone who is forced to annex in order to receive water to their new development would not have these problems; they would have standing and a reverse validation cause of action. However, there are strict statutes of limitation in which they must challenge that action by Redlands, and they need to know their right to challenge the forced annexation. Sometimes developers come to Mentone and develop their properties and then leave after annexing because they don’t care,” attorney Caraway concluded.
The appellate court agreed with the trial court on all other issues on which it opined; some issues had not been decided on the trial court level and some were not addressed in the appellate decision.
LAFCo, the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission, which oversees all of Redlands’ annexations, is the other defendant, with somewhat different issues in the case.
UPDATE:
On Tuesday, November 12, C.O.M.E.T. filed a timely challenge to the decision, titled a Petition for Rehearing, with the Fourth District Court of Appeals, to which was attached a Declaration of Joyce Caraway, with proof that the “reverse validation” had not been triggered by the Annexation and “”pre”-annexation “Agreements attached to three versions of the Complaints. “Although I am informed by appellate specialists that the Court usually does not accept briefs with declarations, it did this time,” stated attorney Caraway.
“The Petition argued that because the ‘Agreements’ – which were only “pre”-annexed [Ed.’s Note: those for Mentone’s Dollar General and the erstwhile Tom’s Burgers], together with Redlands’ illegal 1956 annexation of Mentone’s Section 7 and all of Mill Creek, did not trigger the reverse validation action, it was error for that court and the trial court to throw out the causes of action – most of which rulings were based on ‘no timely reverse validation’ – and they should be reinstated,” she added. “Redlands is not allowed to file an Answer to the Petition unless the court asks it to.
“The appellate court has until 30 day after its October 25th Opinion against C.O.M.E.T. in which to decide whether to grant the rehearing; if it does not wish to do so it may state that intention or it may just ignore the Petition,” Caraway concluded. MM