Blog View

On February 26 the court denied COMET’s Petition for Writ of Mandate, which sought an Order to the Superior Court to reverse its denial of COMET’s request for leave from filing a late claim for damages. The Appellate Court did not specify its reasons for denying the Writ Petition (Ed.,’s note: that process is called a “summary denial”). According to lawyers’ blogs online, the court summarily denies most writ petitions.

COMET’s Writ Petition was based on the grounds that Mentonites did not know of Redlands’ annexations of their territory until long after they were concluded and therefore Mentonites could not have filed their protests or claims for damages within the 60-day time limitation; that when they learned of the completed annexations they did not know what to do about them except protest, which did not stop the annexations, until advised to file suit; and then could not find an attorney to take the case for what they could afford, until late 2018. The lawsuit was filed in Spring 2019.

On March 6 COMET’s pro bono (Ed.’s note: donating their professional time) counsel filed COMET’s Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court, requesting that the high court order the Fourth District Court of Appeals to consider the Writ Petition on its merits or on the grounds stated in it. One ground in the Petition for Review is that the 1997 Measure U, which Redlands utilizes to demand annexation in exchange for water and sewer service (where available) – after decades of allowing hookups for just a minimal cost for connection – was unauthorized by existing state Supreme Court law at the time: in 1915 and again in 1986, the high court held that a city purchasing a private water company was required to continue providing water to the customers, including any new customers who moved into the area.  The Supreme Court cases were mentioned in a case decision supplied by Redlands’ and LAFCO’s counsel. A San Bernardino-based case also prohibited discrimination in the provision of water.

Another ground in the Petition for Review quoted a 1982 case which held that rules for LAFCO (Ed.’s note: Local Area Formation COmmission, which the Legislature set up to exist in every California county) did not allow a receiving city to vote on annexation, that the voting right belongs solely to the territory being annexed.  The Petition for Review also raised constitutional issues with Measure U and reiterated its position that Measure U is extortionate (Ed.’s note: in other words, demanding something that it is not entitled to have).

The high court can either:  grant the Petition and review the case itself; grant review and order the Appellate Court to reconsider its denial; or deny the Petition for Review, with or without comment. There is no time limit to do so.

The Superior Court also denied COMET’s earlier Motion for an Injunction against Redlands’ enforcement of Measure U; however, that Motion did not contain the law given in the Petition for Review, which was recently discovered by COMET’s counsel.

COMET stands for Community of Mentone Empowered Together and represents all Mentone residents and landowners who wish to be involved : of the respondents to a recent poll conducted by MM, almost all were against annexation.  MM will report on developments as early as possible after they occur.

MM