What are recall elections?

Useful Rulings on Recall Elections

Rulings on Recall Elections

1-25 of 4206 results

ALAN RAPAPORT, ET AL VS. LAKE LINDERO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Alan Rapaport et al v Lake Lindero HOA et al Rapaport’s Motion for Order Requiring Association to Commence Recall Election; Appointing Independent Inspector of Election; Attorney Fees; Civil Penalties Date of Hearing: 11-5-18 Trial Date: 6-24-19 Department: T Case No: LC107535 r/t LC107621 Plaintiffs request an order requiring the HOA to hold a recall election. Corp C §7510. Plaintiffs obtained more than the 5% required under the statute to require the HOA to hold a recall election.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2018

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

VENEGAS V BLAIR

The recall election for respondent’s position shall be conducted as a citywide recall at large election.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2018

VENEGAS V BLAIR

The recall election for respondent’s position shall be conducted as a citywide recall at large election.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2018

DANI Z V HANFORD ELEMENTARY

It appears from the Petition, Motion, and Opposition to Motion filed by the parties that their core disagreement surrounds the phrase “electoral jurisdiction,” and how the same is to be defined in connection with the recall election; to wit, Citywide or District “E” only. (See e.g., EC §11005 [“The proponents of a recall must be registered voters of the electoral jurisdiction of the officer they seek to recall.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2018

DANI Z V HANFORD ELEMENTARY

It appears from the Petition, Motion, and Opposition to Motion filed by the parties that their core disagreement surrounds the phrase “electoral jurisdiction,” and how the same is to be defined in connection with the recall election; to wit, Citywide or District “E” only. (See e.g., EC §11005 [“The proponents of a recall must be registered voters of the electoral jurisdiction of the officer they seek to recall.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2018

SEGOVIA VS. CANCIAMILLA

Kilbourne involved a special recall election of a city council member, but there was a ballot error misspelling his name. The city council member did not seek a writ of mandate until after the election was held to invalidate the election based on the ballot error. The trial court ruled, in relevant part, that it lacked jurisdiction and that the matter was moot.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2018

DANI Z V HANFORD ELEMENTARY

It appears from the Petition, Motion, and Opposition to Motion filed by the parties that their core disagreement surrounds the phrase “electoral jurisdiction,” and how the same is to be defined in connection with the recall election; to wit, Citywide or District “E” only. (See e.g., EC §11005 [“The proponents of a recall must be registered voters of the electoral jurisdiction of the officer they seek to recall.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2018

GALLEGOS VS. CORSICAN VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Petition for order deeming recall of board of directors of respondent successful and setting special members meeting for election of replacement directors. Petition granted. The court finds that respondent association has a total of 72 members. At a duly noticed and conducted special member’s meeting held on 04/04/18, a quorum of the members was present in person or by proxy, and that a total of 45 valid votes were cast on the recall of respondent’s board of directors.

  • Hearing

    Apr 27, 2018

REGENCY ESTATES V. ESPIRIDION MORIN, ET AL.

., a recall election].� (Id. at p. 1422 [italics added].) Moreover, the court specifically stated it did not foreclose the possibility that the Unfair Competition Law (�UCL�) could apply to a homeowner�s association. (Id. at p. 1427.) The UCL, which applies to �any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition �.� (Bus. & Prof.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2014

MAC SOHRABI VS. FARHAD HADJIBABAIE

However, the election clause of the Redemption Agreement in this case required Plaintiffs to make an election-not Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

JOSE VILLANUEVA VS CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD ET AL

For the 997 Petition, Villanueva contends that election officials qualified 1737 signatures, meaning that Petitioner needs 1029 more. For the 998 Petition, Villanueva contends that election officials qualified 1714 signatures, meaning that Petitioner needs 1052 more. See City Opp. at 8.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2018

MAC SOHRABI VS. FARHAD HADJIBABAIE

However, the election clause of the Redemption Agreement in this case required Plaintiffs to make an election-not Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

GLEASON VS. DEBRA BOWEN IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Elections Code section 18650 provides that “[n]o one shall knowingly or willfully permit the list of signatures on an initiative, referendum, or recall petition to be used for any purpose other than qualification of the initiative or referendum measure or recall question for the ballot, except as provided in Section 6253.5 of the Government Code.”

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2016

GLEASON VS. DEBRA BOWEN IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Elections Code section 18650 provides that “[n]o one shall knowingly or willfully permit the list of signatures on an initiative, referendum, or recall petition to be used for any purpose other than qualification of the initiative or referendum measure or recall question for the ballot, except as provided in Section 6253.5 of the Government Code.”

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2016

SUGARMAN FAMILY PARTNERS V. BANC OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

The Irrevocable Election literally states four times, in four separate places – first in the title of the document and then three more times in the first four lines of the document – that the election is irrevocable. Id. (“SUBSCRIPTION – IRREVOCABLE ELECTION”; “*This irrevocable exercise . . .”; “this election is irrevocable”; the holder of the Warrant “irrevocably elects to purchase”) (emphases added).

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2020

BRIAN HOFER VS JIM ARMSTRONG

Summary of the Background Petitioner Brian Hofer filed a petition for writ of mandate, pursuant to Elections Code § 13313(b)(1) (actually Elections Code § 9295), asking the Court to order deleted allegedly false, misleading and inconsistent information from a ballot argument in favor of Measure B that appears on the ballot in the City of Santa Barbara’s municipal election on November 3, 2009. (Voting in the “mail only” election began on October 5 and ends on November 3.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2009

GETZ V. SERRANO EL DORADO OWNERS’ ASSOC.

election to determine whether to recall the HOA’s current Board, which is scheduled for May 29, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

BIANCA SANDOVAL VS EMILY COLBORN ET AL

6, 2018 statewide election.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2018

JIMMY NGUYEN V. SYLVIA ARENAS

This election contest brought by Jimmy Nguyen (“Contestant”) against Sylvia Arenas (“Defendant”) concerns the November 2016 election for the 8th City Council District of the City of San Jose. According to the First Amended Statement of Election Contest (the “Contest”), Contestant and Defendant were candidates in the election for the subject City Council position. Defendant was declared the elected winner by Shannon Bushey (“Bushey”) in her capacity as the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2018

HORIZON CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

The three cases cited by the City to support its argument that Petitioners were required to bring this action before the election are distinguishable. In Kilbourne, for example, a city council member who was removed from office by a special recall election sought to invalidate the election on the ground that his name was misspelled on the ballot. The court held the action should have been brought before the election, when there was still time to correct the ballot. (Kilbourne, supra, 56 Cal.App.3d at 16.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2019

GLEASON VS. DEBRA BOWEN IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Former Elections Code section 105 provided in relevant part: For purposes of verifying signatures on any initiative, referendum, recall, nomination, or other election petition or paper, the elections official shall determine that the residence address on the petition or paper is the same as the residence address on the affidavit of registration.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2018

GLEASON VS. DEBRA BOWEN IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Former Elections Code section 105 provided in relevant part: For purposes of verifying signatures on any initiative, referendum, recall, nomination, or other election petition or paper, the elections official shall determine that the residence address on the petition or paper is the same as the residence address on the affidavit of registration.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2018

CAREN EARLEY ET AL VS VERMONT VILLAGE PLAZA CORP ET AL

To the extent the motion seeks to void the election results of September 24, 2016, the motion is DENIED as moot. Based on Defendants’ declarations, no valid election occurred on that date and no existing board of directors has been appointed. Accordingly, there is no election for the court to void. The request for a new, independently monitored election is GRANTED based on the conditions noted below. Plaintiffs’ request for the court to appoint an interim director under Corporations Code § 7225 is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2017

LYNN BOONE VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGISTRATR RECORDER

(f) That the precinct board in conducting the election or in canvassing the returns, made errors sufficient to change the result of the election as to any person who has been declared elected. (g) That there was an error in the vote-counting programs or summation of ballot counts.” Elections Code section 16400 et seq. sets forth the procedures for filing election contests.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2017

ALEX ALIFERIS VS MELINDA DUBROFF, REGISTRAR OF VOTERS ET AL.

Superior Court (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 951, 957 (one who has a pre-election remedy must pursue it then and not wait for the outcome of the election). Plaintiff’s post-election remedies are barred: Section 16401 provides for limited post-election remedies, but any such action must be brought within certain periods after the declaration of the results of the election or the declaration of the results of a post-canvass risk-limiting audit.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 169     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.