COMET’s counsel recently received the California Supreme Court’s written notification that it was denying COMET’s petition, without comment. Readers may remember that COMET’s counsel had asked the high court to order the Fourth District Court of Appeals (aka appellate court), a lower court but higher than the local San Bernardino Superior Court), to review COMET’s petition for writ of mandate, or writ petition, on the merits. The Appellate Court had denied COMET’s writ petition without comment, called a summary denial, so COMET is unaware of the appellate court’s reasons.
The writ petition requested the appellate court to review the decision of Judge Donald Alvarez denying COMET’s request for damages for Redlands’ many annexations of Mentone territory over the years, which Judge Alvarez stated was barred by the statute of limitations – in other words, they had happened two many years ago.
Judge Alvarez’ decision on the issue of damages becomes the “law of the case,” according to COMET’s counsel. “It is a disappointment,” she said, “but not the end of the fight against Redlands’ constant and illegal takeover of territory that does not want to be in Redlands. We will continue to fight the takeovers, as long as we possibly can,” she promised.
Although COMET represents every Mentone resident and property owner that wishes to be included, individuals such as the owners of Tom’s Burgers, are still enabled and welcome to file their own case for damages, she added. Additionally, a fight against any annexation in which Mentonites are given an opportunity to vote – only those covering 150 acres or more – only needs 25% of the residents and/or property owners to trigger an election. If 50% object, the annexation cannot go through, according to state law that governs the actions of the County Local Area Formation COmmission, or LAFCO, also a party to the lawsuit. The difficulty is that every annexation since 1956 has been less than 150 acres and Mentonites have been denied the right to vote whether its territory may be eroded, which has been occurring piece by piece, she concluded.
STILL WAITING. . .
Over the weekend, COMET’s counsel received written notification from the Supreme Court that its decision on COMET’s petition to the Court, to order the Fourth District Appellate Court to decide COMET’s writ petition to it on its merits rather than the summary (Ed’s note: without giving any reasons) denial, would be extended to June 4, or perhaps earlier. The writ petition concerns damages suffered by Mentone as a result of Redlands’ demanded annexations.
Due to the Coronavirus pandemic, the County courthouse has been closed to all but emergency situations since mid-March and is scheduled to reopen May 28, unless it is extended again (it was to have reopened on May 1). The Appellate Court is likewise operating through its clerks working at home.
COURT OF APPEAL DENIES WRIT PETITION; PETITION FOR REVIEW FILED
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