Santa Monica Election Litigation

  

Pico Neighborhood Association and Maria Loya v. City of Santa Monica in the matter of California Voting Rights. Case Number BC616804

Frequently Asked Questions

April 12, 2016

Complaint – Plaintiffs file their original complaint challenging the City’s at-large election system. 

February 23, 2017

First Amended Complaint – Plaintiffs’ file their first amended complaint. 

March 30, 2017

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint – City argues that the First Amended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under either the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) or the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution.

Supporting Documents filed by the City:

Declaration of George Brown

Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice - Declaration of Daniel Adler – Attaches supporting exhibits cited in the demurrer.

May 9, 2017

Opposition to Demurrer – Plaintiffs oppose the City’s demurrer.

Supporting Documents filed by Plaintiffs:  

Objection to Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice  – Attaches supporting exhibits cited in opposition.

May 22, 2017

City's Reply in Support of Demurrer – City filing responding to Plaintiffs’ opposition. 

Supporting Documents filed by City:  

Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrer

June 7, 2017

Order Overruling City's Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint – Court denies demurrer and orders City to file answer to FAC. 

June 27, 2017

City's Answer to the First Amended Complaint – City files its response to the allegations in the FAC and asserts affirmative defenses.

March 29, 2018

City's Motion for Summary Judgment – City contends that judgment should be issued in its favor because there are no triable issues of material fact on either Plaintiffs’ CVRA claim or their Equal Protection claim.

Supporting Documents filed by City:  

City's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts

City's Request for Judicial Notice - Declaration of Daniel Adler – Attaches supporting exhibits for summary judgment motion.

Exhibit AA: Peter Morrison Declaration

Exhibit A: Elected Representative Roster

Exhibit B: Election Results

Exhibit C: Order Overruling City's Demurrer

Exhibit D: Order on Legal Issue Regarding Cumulative Voting in Soliz Case

Exhibit E: Demand Letter from Plaintiff

Exhibit F: Census Data

Exhibit G: 1948 and 1941 City Charters

Exhibit H: Exhibit 2 from Kevin Shenkman Declaration

May 31, 2018

Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment – Plaintiffs oppose City’s motion for summary judgment, and contend that service of the motion on Plaintiffs was untimely.

Supporting Documents filed by Plaintiffs:

Plaintiff's Separate Statement in Opposition – Plaintiffs contest that facts cited by City are undisputed and assert additional facts they contend are undisputed.

Declaration of David Ely

Declaration of J. Morgan Kousser

Declaration of Justin Levitt

Declaration of Sergio Farias

Declaration of Kevin Shenkman

Proof of Service

June 7, 2018

City's Reply in Support of its Summary Judgment Motion – City responds to Plaintiffs’ opposition

Supporting Documents filed by the City:

City's Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence – City states objections to certain evidence submitted by Plaintiffs

City's Reply in Support of Separate Statement – City responds to Plaintiffs’ contentions regarding disputed and undisputed facts

Declaration of Daniel Adler

June 14, 2018

City's Motion for Order Rejecting Plaintiffs' Untimely Service Argument – City argues that Plaintiffs’s untimely service argument should be rejected because they cannot show any prejudice from late service.

Supporting Documents filed by City:

Declaration of Daniel Adler

June 18, 2018

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to City’s Motion for Order Rejecting Plaintiffs’ Untimely Service Argument – Plaintiffs respond to City’s arguments regarding untimely service

Supporting Documents filed by Plaintiffs:

Declaration of Kevin Shenkman

June 19, 2018

Orders Denying City's Motion – Court issues two orders. One denies the City’s motion for an order rejecting Plaintiffs’ untimely service argument. The second denies the City’s motion for summary judgment based on untimely service.

July 2, 2018

City’s Writ Petition – In the Court of Appeal, City challenges the trial court’s orders denying its summary judgment motion.

July 9, 2018

Letter Response to Writ Petition – Plaintiffs respond to the City’s petition requesting that the Court of Appeal overturn the trial court’s orders denying the City’s summary judgment motion. 

July 11, 2018

Reply in Support of Writ Petition – The City replies to Plaintiffs’ response, further explaining why the Court of Appeal should overturn the trial court’s orders denying the City’s summary judgment motion. 

July 12, 2018

Order Denying Writ Petition – Court of Appeal denies City’s petition for a writ overturning the trial court’s orders denying the City’s summary judgment motion. 

July 30, 2018

City’s Trial Brief – Brief filed by City discussing legal and factual issues anticipated to arise at trial. 

August 1, 2018

City's Opening Statement – City's Opening Statement Presentation presented at trial.

September 11, 2018

Tentative Ruling on City’s Sanctions Motion – Court issues tentative order requiring plaintiffs and their counsel to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $21,612.50 based on misuse of discovery process.  (Order made final on November 8, 2018 – see entry below.)

September 25, 2018 

Plaintiffs’ Closing Brief– Plaintiffs’ closing brief presented at the conclusion of trial.

October 15, 2018

City’s Closing Brief – City’s closing brief presented at the conclusion of trial.

October 25, 2018

Plaintiffs’ Rebuttal Closing – Plaintiffs’ rebuttal closing brief presented at the conclusion of trial.

November 8, 2018

Court’s Tentative Ruling – Tentative ruling by the court.

Minute Order re Sanctions – Court issues final order requiring plaintiffs and their counsel to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $21,612.50 based on misuse of discovery process.

November 15, 2018

Request for Statement of Decision – Filing by the City requesting that the Court provide an explanation of the legal and factual bases for its tentative decision.

November 19, 2018

Plaintiffs’ Remedies Brief – Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the remedies they seek to have the court impose.

                Supporting Documents filed by Plaintiffs

                                 Declaration of Justin Levitt

                                 Declaration of Kevin Shenkman

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Seven-District Map – The district map proposed by plaintiffs, which was prepared by plaintiffs’ expert and offered by plaintiffs as an exhibit at trial.

November 26, 2018

Response to Request for Statement of Decision – Plaintiffs’ response to the City’s request that the Court provide an explanation of the legal and factual bases for its tentative decision.   

November 30, 2018

City’s Answering Brief Regarding Remedies - City's arguments regarding remedies.

November 28, 2018

Order re Statement of Decision – Order directing Plaintiffs to file and serve a proposed statement of decision on or before January 2, 2019.

December 4, 2018

Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief Regarding Remedies – Plaintiffs’ response to City’s arguments regarding remedies.

December 14, 2018

Court’s First Amended Tentative Decision – Amended tentative ruling by the court.

December 21, 2018

Request for Statement of Decision re: First Amended Tentative Decision – Filing by the City requesting that the Court provide an explanation of the legal and factual bases for its first amended tentative decision.

December 31, 2018

Ex Parte Application for Clarification – Filing by plaintiffs seeking clarification from court regarding its amended tentative ruling re remedies.

January 2, 2019

Response to Ex Parte Application – Filing by City responding to plaintiffs’ request for clarification.

January 3, 2019

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Statement of Decision – Plaintiffs’ proposed explanation of the factual and legal bases for the court’s tentative decision.

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Judgment – Plaintiffs’ proposal for the judgment to be issued by the court.

January 18, 2019

City’s Objections to Proposed Statement of Decision — City’ filing of its factual and legal objections to the statement of decision proposed by plaintiffs.
City’ Objections to Proposed Judgment — City’s filing of its factual and legal objections to the order of judgment proposed by plaintiffs.

City’s Request for Judicial Notice – City’s request for the Court to take notice of Santa Monica’s 2018 election results.

January 25, 2019

Plaintiffs file four documents in response to the City’s Objections to their proposed statement of decision and judgment:

Plaintiffs’ Response to Objections to Proposed Statement of Decision

Plaintiffs’ Response to Objections to Proposed Judgment

Plaintiffs’ Corrected Proposed Judgment

Plaintiffs’ Objections to Request for Judicial Notice

February 15, 2019

Order re Objections to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Judgment – Court denies City’s objections to Plaintiffs’ proposed judgment.

Order re Objections to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Statement of Decision – Court denies the majority of the City’s objections to Plaintiffs’ proposed statement of decision.

Statement of Decision – With minor changes, Court adopts Plaintiffs’ proposed statement of decision.

Judgment – Court adopts Plaintiffs’ corrected proposed judgment.

February 22, 2019

City’s Notice of Appeal

February 28, 2019

City’s Ex Parte Application (a) to confirm that paragraph 9 of the February 13, 2019, judgment is a mandatory injunction and thus stayed pending appeal, or (b) in the alternative, to stay pending appeal the enforcement of paragraph 9.

Declaration of Denise Anderson-Warren

Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey B. Lewis

March 6, 2019

Order Denying City’s Ex Parte Application to Confirm

March 8, 2019

City’s Petition for Writ of Supersedeas Seeking Immediate Stay

March 18, 2019

Stay Order – Order from Court of Appeal temporarily staying paragraph 9 of the February 13, 2019 judgment.   

March 21, 2019

Respondents’ Petition for Writ of Supersedeas Seeking Immediate Stay

Back to top