On September 28, 2022 a
Party Notice
was filed
involving a dispute between
The Red Brennan Group,
and
Does 1 Through 50,
Jimenez, Michael,
for Writ of Mandate Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
‘
V ClV-1 30
ATTORNEY 0R PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name. sma 5a number, m address).-
FOR COURTUSEDNLY
Bradley W. Hera, #1 38564
The Sutton Law Firm, PC
22815 Ventura Blvd., # 405, Los Angeles, CA 91 364
TELEPHONE '40.:(818) 593-2949 FAX No. W141 5) 732-7701
E-MNL ADDRESS (Wav:bheru@camoaianlawvers.oom I LE D
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AWORNEY FOR (Name):RPl supeanancoum 0F CALIFORMA
cuo NW0 SAN BERNARmNo
SUPER“ COURT °F CAL'F0RNIA- COU NTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO sAn BERMRDINO ousmcw
STREET ADDRESS;247 west 3rd Street
MAILING ADDRESS:247 West 3rd street FEB 0 2 2023
cm AND ZIP cone: San Bemardino' CA 9241 5
BRANCH NAMESan Bernardino Justice Center
' ‘
PLAINTIFFIPETITIONERiTHE RED BRENNAN GROUP BY
GLomA MARIN. DEPUTY
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: MICHAEL JIMENH, ET AL.
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
OR ORDER CASE NUMBER:
C'V332213598
(Check one).- Exj UNLmrren CASE [j Lumen cAss
(Amount demanded (Amount demanded was
exceeded $25,000) $25,000 or less)
TO ALL PARTIES :
1. A judgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (data): Januarv 27. 2023
2. A copy of the Judgment, decree, or order is anached to this notice.
Date: Februarv
(TYPE
1.
0R PRINT NAME OF
2023
l
X I
Bradtey
ATTORNEY
W. Hera
L_J PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY)
’j
(SIGNAT
\(Q
E)
W
Ply. 1 o1 2
meggggggmg’e NOTICE 0F ENTRY 0F JUDGMENT 0R ORDER www,cour1s.cagov
CN-130 [New Jammy 1. 201D)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
San Bernardino District
247 West 3rd St
San Bernardino, CA 92415
www.sb-court.org
PORTAL MINUTE ORDER
Case Number: CIVSBZZ18598
Date: 1/27/2023
Case Title: The Red Brennan Group
.V.
Jimenez et al
Department $33 - saJc Date: 1127/2023 Time: 10:00 AM Ru'ing °“ submitted
Matter
Judicial Officer: Winston Keh
Amie Arroyo
Judicial Assistant:
Court Reporter: Not Reported or Recorded
Appearances
No Appearances
Proceedings
The Court having taken the matter of Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive and
Declaratory Relief
under submission on 1/17/2023 now rules as follows:
Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive
and Declaratory Relief is denied.
DISCUSSION
The Court has considered all the moving papers submitted
by the parties, and has heard arguments from both sides.
The Court took the matter under submission to carefully analyze the
issues raised by the parties. The Court now
issues its ruling as follows: -
As a threshold matter, the Court has reviewed the Board’s 22
evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Alexander
A. Frank and to the exhibits attached to Declaration. The Board's
basis for each objection is based on Evidence
Code sections 350 and 352. The Court overrules all the objections.
Turning now to the merits, Petitioners argue in their amended pleading, as in and Petition, that
their original Writ
Measure D should be found invalid because provisions violate the “rule" stated in Hernandez v. County of Los
Angeles (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 12 that a ballot measure's, though disparate, must be “reasonably related to
achieve a common theme or purpose.” (Hernandez, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 23.) In addition, Petitioners argue
that Measure D violates Elections Code section 131 19 because its title labeling
as “taxpayer protection“ and
it
“government reform" measure is false and misleading. Petitioners
also contend that the ballot materials regarding
Measure D were so misleading and deceptive that they violated constitutional
due process, and therefore the
measure should be invalidated.
A. Petitioners Misconstrue “Reasonably Related”
Language in Hernandez
Petitioners first assert that the California Constitution, article
ll, section 8, subdivision (d), contains the "single-subject
rule" which provides that measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the
"[a]n initiative
electors or have any effect." (Cal. Const., art. H,
§ 8, subd. (d).) Petitioners go on to note that a county or city charter
may be amended either through an initiative petition signed by voters and placed on the ballot,
or through a ballot
measure sponsored by the county's or city’s governing body. (Cal.
Const., art. XI, § 3.) However, Petitioners then cite
Document Filed Date
February 02, 2023
Case Filing Date
September 28, 2022
Category
Writ of Mandate Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
‘ V ClV-1 30 ATTORNEY 0R PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name. sma 5a number, m address).- FOR COURTUSEDNLY Bradley W. Hera, #1 38564 The Sutton Law Firm, PC 22815 Ventura Blvd., # 405, Los Angeles, CA 91 364 TELEPHONE '40.:(818) 593-2949 FAX No. W141 5) 732-7701 E-MNL ADDRESS (Wav:bheru@camoaianlawvers.oom I LE D SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AWORNEY FOR (Name):RPl supeanancoum 0F CALIFORMA cuo NW0 SAN BERNARmNo SUPER“ COURT °F CAL'F0RNIA- COU NTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO sAn BERMRDINO ousmcw STREET ADDRESS;247 west 3rd Street MAILING ADDRESS:247 West 3rd street FEB 0 2 2023 cm AND ZIP cone: San Bemardino' CA 9241 5 BRANCH NAMESan Bernardino Justice Center ' ‘ PLAINTIFFIPETITIONERiTHE RED BRENNAN GROUP BY GLomA MARIN. DEPUTY DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: MICHAEL JIMENH, ET AL. NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER CASE NUMBER: C'V332213598 (Check one).- Exj UNLmrren CASE [j Lumen cAss (Amount demanded (Amount demanded was exceeded $25,000) $25,000 or less) TO ALL PARTIES : 1. A judgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (data): Januarv 27. 2023 2. A copy of the Judgment, decree, or order is anached to this notice. Date: Februarv (TYPE 1. 0R PRINT NAME OF 2023 l X I Bradtey ATTORNEY W. Hera L_J PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) ’j (SIGNAT \(Q E) W Ply. 1 o1 2 meggggggmg’e NOTICE 0F ENTRY 0F JUDGMENT 0R ORDER www,cour1s.cagov CN-130 [New Jammy 1. 201D) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO San Bernardino District 247 West 3rd St San Bernardino, CA 92415 www.sb-court.org PORTAL MINUTE ORDER Case Number: CIVSBZZ18598 Date: 1/27/2023 Case Title: The Red Brennan Group .V. Jimenez et al Department $33 - saJc Date: 1127/2023 Time: 10:00 AM Ru'ing °“ submitted Matter Judicial Officer: Winston Keh Amie Arroyo Judicial Assistant: Court Reporter: Not Reported or Recorded Appearances No Appearances Proceedings The Court having taken the matter of Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief under submission on 1/17/2023 now rules as follows: Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief is denied. DISCUSSION The Court has considered all the moving papers submitted by the parties, and has heard arguments from both sides. The Court took the matter under submission to carefully analyze the issues raised by the parties. The Court now issues its ruling as follows: - As a threshold matter, the Court has reviewed the Board’s 22 evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Alexander A. Frank and to the exhibits attached to Declaration. The Board's basis for each objection is based on Evidence Code sections 350 and 352. The Court overrules all the objections. Turning now to the merits, Petitioners argue in their amended pleading, as in and Petition, that their original Writ Measure D should be found invalid because provisions violate the “rule" stated in Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 12 that a ballot measure's, though disparate, must be “reasonably related to achieve a common theme or purpose.” (Hernandez, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 23.) In addition, Petitioners argue that Measure D violates Elections Code section 131 19 because its title labeling as “taxpayer protection“ and it “government reform" measure is false and misleading. Petitioners also contend that the ballot materials regarding Measure D were so misleading and deceptive that they violated constitutional due process, and therefore the measure should be invalidated. A. Petitioners Misconstrue “Reasonably Related” Language in Hernandez Petitioners first assert that the California Constitution, article ll, section 8, subdivision (d), contains the "single-subject rule" which provides that measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the "[a]n initiative electors or have any effect." (Cal. Const., art. H, § 8, subd. (d).) Petitioners go on to note that a county or city charter may be amended either through an initiative petition signed by voters and placed on the ballot, or through a ballot measure sponsored by the county's or city’s governing body. (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 3.) However, Petitioners then cite