On September 28, 2022 a
Complaint,Petition
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
F LE
I
SUPERIOR counT 0F CALIFo
D
CD. Michel—SBN 144258 coumv 0F SAN BERNAanIng'A
Joseph Di Monda—SBN 184640 sm 95mm ousraccr
Alexander A. Frank — SBN 31 171 8
MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. NOV 21 2022
180 Ocean Blvd, Suite 200
E.
Long Beach, CA 90802
k.
Telephone: (562) 216—4444
Facsimile: (562) 216—4445
Email: afrankaffimichcllawycrs.com
Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff THE RED BRENNAN GROUP
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
THE RED BRENNAN GROUP. CASE No.2 CIVSBZZISS98
10
Petitioner/Plaintiff, Assignedfbr allpurposes to the Hon.
v. DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER A.
12 FRANK 1N SUPPORT OF AMENDED
MICHAEL JIMENEZ, in his official capacity PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AN] U
13
San Bemardino County Registrar 0f Voters;
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
as
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
14
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
[Filed concurrently with Memorandum of Points
Respondents/Defendants.
and Authorities; notice 0f writ hearing and writ;
[proposed order]]
16
Date: December 15, 2022
17 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept: 33
18
Action Filed: Sep. 28, 2022
l9
20 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS,
21
Real Party in Interest.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER A. FRANK
DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER A. FRANK
I, Alexander A. Frank, declare as follows:
l. I am an attorney duly licensed t0 practice law before all courts of the State of
California. This declaration is submitted in suppofi of Petitioner The Red Brennan Group’s ex
parte application for an order to immediately set the hearing date on Petitioner’s writ petition and
complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. The following facts are within my persona]
knowledge and if call as a witness I can and will competently testify hereto.
2. In 2020, San Bemardino County voters overwhelmingly approved Measure K.
Measure K’s two substantive provisions were limiting the individual supervisors’ salaries t0
$5,000 pcr month inclusive of benefits and a single tenn 0f office limitation. (See true and correct
copy of a screenshot from the Registrar’s website 0f the Measure D election results attached as
Exhibit A)
3. A true and correct copy of Measure K as it appeared in the 2020 Registrar’s voter
information guide, which shows its substantive provisions, is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
4. The Supervisors filed a lawsuit t0 challenge Measure K’s substantive provisions,
titled San Bernardino County Board QfSupervisors v. Lynna Monell, San Bemardino County
Superior Court Case No. ClVSBZOZS3 19.
5. In July 0f2022, the California court of appeal issued a tentative opinion partially
reversing the trial court ruling and essentially upholding Measure K. (A true and correct copy of
the California Court 0f Appeal tentative opinion is attached hereto as Exhibit C).
6. Exhibit D is intentionally omitted.
7. The Supervisors formally met 0n July 12, 2022, and their next formal meeting was
on July 26, 2022. (A true and correct copy of the July 26, 2022, meeting agenda is attached here
as Exhibit E.)
9‘“ and formally adopted Measure D. (A true and
8. The Supervisors met 0n August
correct partial copy 0f the August 9 agenda is attached hereto as Exhibit F.)
2
FRANK DECLARATION
Document Filed Date
November 21, 2022
Case Filing Date
September 28, 2022
Category
Writ of Mandate Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.