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.

Back to top