Contra Costa Cnty. v. Superior Court

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Respondent; DEBORAH COOPER et al., Real Parties in Interest.
• Docket Number: A166024
• Decision Date: 08 September 2022

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Petitioner,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Respondent;

DEBORAH COOPER et al., Real Parties in Interest.

A166024

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division

September 8, 2022

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSN221614

POLLAK, P.J.

Contra Costa County (County) seeks a peremptory writ of mandate that would prohibit the Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters (Registrar) from presenting a ballot measure to dissolve the Knightsen Town Community Services District (District) to County voters at the November 8, 2022 general election. In accordance with our prior notification to the parties that we might do so, we will direct the issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance granting Contra Costa County its requested relief. (See Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 177-180.)

On August 4, 2022, the District adopted a resolution to place a measure on the November 8, 2022 ballot to ask voters whether to dissolve the District. On August 26, 2022, the County filed a petition for writ of mandate and

1

complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief in the Contra Costa County Superior Court to prevent the measure from appearing on the November 8 ballot. The County alleged the ballot measure was invalid because it evaded the requirements of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Government Code section 56000 et seq. (CKH Act). The superior court issued a temporary restraining order restraining the Registrar from placing the measure on the November 8 ballot, and set a hearing on the County's petition for September 1. The District was given until August 30 to file an opposition brief.

The District did not file an opposition or appear at the September 1 hearing. Nevertheless, on September 1, the superior court denied the County's request to prevent the Registrar from placing the measure on the November 8 ballot, stating the County did not establish it would be irreparably harmed if the measure was placed on the ballot because the measure's validity could be challenged after the election.

On September 2, the County filed a petition for writ of mandate in this court to prevent the measure from appearing on the November 8 ballot. The County requested immediate relief because the Registrar intended to submit ballot materials to the printer on September 6, with printing to begin on September 9. In response to our inquiry, the County and Registrar informed us that we could grant effective relief if we issued a...