Tag: Mentone

Counsel for C.O.M.E.T. (Community of Mentone Empowered Together) filed a Motion for six injunctions against future conduct before Superior Court Judge, the Honorable Donald Alvarez, in July; Redlands’ and LAFCO’s counsel opposed the Motion, on the basis that C.O.M.E.T. should have filed a “reverse validation” action challenging completed projects. Several weeks after the hearing on the Motion, Judge Alvarez, who ruled in Greenspot’s favor on the “Harmony” Project, denied it. C.O.M.E.T.’s counsel then filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with the Fourth District, seeking an order of that Court that Judge Alvarez change his decision to comply with the law C.O.M.E.T. had provided. 
The Injunctions sought Court orders that “1) Redlands cease demanding annexation of a new development to Redlands City Limits in exchange for water or sewer service, so as to take Mentone territory to itself, whether via its annexation “Agreements” or any other methods; 2) Redlands cease enforcement of all provisions of executed said annexation or “pre-annexation” “Agreements”; 3) Redlands cease requiring payment of “Development Impact Fees” (“DIFs”) for services it does not provide, such as fire, police, library, parks and others; 4) Redlands cease requiring payment of “Development Impact Fees” that exceed the reasonable cost of providing the services it does provide, which violates its own adopted professional development fee impact studies, in order to receive water and sewer service; 5) LAFCO cease its violation of Government Code §56133(e)(4); and 6) prohibited any lobbying or other interference by Redlands, LAFCO or any other party against passage of proposed legislation that would prohibit Redlands from demanding said forced annexation from Mentone.”  Early in 2019, Senator Mike Morrell had introduced a bill prohibiting governmental entities from demand No. 1 above, but it “died in committee.” LAFCO is alleged wrongfully to have approved Redlands’ alleged extortionate annexations. 
Meanwhile, C.O.M.E.T.’s counsel had also filed a Motion for Relief from Government Code section 945.6.  The Motion for Relief requested that the Court allow late claims against Redlands for its annexations of Mentone territory, of which Mentone did not know until much later, and alleged compliance with a three-year statute of limitations, imposed for fraudulent transactions.  Redlands’ and LAFCO’s counsel opposed, and C.O.M.E.T.’s counsel filed a reply. Several weeks after the hearing Judge Alvarez denied that, as well. 
C.O.M.E.T.’s counsel then filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate to the Fourth District Court of Appeal on Monday, January 27. The Writ Petition alleges that LAFCO’s rules, set down by the Legislature, prohibit a City from voting on annexation because the rules only provide for voting by the “affected territory,” i.e., an unincorporated area such as Mentone. This was held in the Supreme Court’s case of “Citizens Against Forced Annexation v. LOCAL AG. FORM., 32 Cal. 3d 816, 187 Cal. Rptr, 654 P. 2d 193 (Cal Supreme Court, 1982),” in which the situation was the reverse of Mentone’s: Eastview wanted to be annexed to Rancho Palos Verdes, which didn’t want the annexed territory but the Court held that it had no vote against annexation. Thus, the Petition states, Measure U, under which Redlands has demanded annexation for more than 19 years, was void from the beginning. 
Moreover, the Petition states, the Supreme Court case of “Hansen v. City of San Buenaventura (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1172, 1188-1189, 233 Cal. Rptr. 22, 729 P.2d 186 [held] that a city acquiring the water system of another community was under the same obligation as the grantor to continue the service and supply water to all who may become entitled to it in the future.” Redlands’ and LAFCO’s Opposition argued that a First District case gave Redlands the right to demand annexation in exchange for water [Ed.’s note: Supreme Court law “trumps” a State’s District Court so it can’t be overturned, as Redlands seemed to be arguing and Judge Alvarez’s decision adopted]. 
The Fourth District’s reputation is that Writ Petitions are often denied summarily (without explanation); if they are not, the other parties have an opportunity to respond and then the Petitioner has another opportunity to argue their case. The decision may or may not be published, depending on the effect on established case law on the subject. If the Petitioner or Respondent is unsatisfied with the decision, they may appeal to the Supreme Court, which doesn’t take every case referred to it for review but often does if it involves conflicts in law between two or more District Court decisions. In the C.O.M.E.T. vs. Redlands case, there may be a conflict between the Supreme Court cases that C.O.M.E.T. relied on and the case Redlands’ and LAFCO’s counsel argued.   
A Motion is a written document, filed and scheduled for hearing; oral argument is made at the hearing by the attorneys involved. A Petition for Writ of Mandate can be made to the Superior Court or the Fourth District Court of Appeals, who receives the case after it has been heard in the Superior Court, or it can be made to the Superior Court in the first place. There are strict deadlines for filing lawsuits, motions and writ petitions but the only deadline for the Superior Court Judges is 90 days for a motion. MM