Imperial v. Castruita, CV05894ORGKCWX.

• Decision Date: 17 January 2006
• Docket Number: No. CV05894ORGKCWX.,CV05894ORGKCWX.
• Citation: Imperial v. Castruita, 418 F.Supp.2d 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2006)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: Jay IMPERIAL, et al. v. Nina CASTRUITA, et al.

418 F.Supp.2d 1174

Jay IMPERIAL, et al. v.Nina CASTRUITA, et al.

No. CV05894ORGKCWX.

United States District Court, C.D. California.

January 17, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Stuart L. Leviton, Leviton Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Bonifacio B. Garcia, Burke Williams & Sorensen, Sarah Peters Gorman, Burke Williams and Sorensen, Los Angeles, CA, Kenneth D. Rozell, Peter L. Wallin, Wallin Kress Reisman & Kranitz, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendants.

KLAUSNER, District Judge.

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DE 12)

I.INTRODUCTION

Jay Imperial and Lan Lee("Plaintiffs") have sued the Rosemead City Council and Nina Castruita, in her official capacity as Clerk of the City of Rosemead("Defendants") for conducting a recall election in violation federal and state voting laws.The Complaint alleges three claims for relief: (1)Violation of Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1971("VRA");(2) Violation of California Elections Code Section 11242("Section 11242"); and (3) Violation of California Elections Code Section 11240("Section 11240").

On December 27, 2005, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order("TRO") and Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction, seeking an order enjoining Defendants from proceeding with the recall election scheduled for February 7, 2006.The Court granted Plaintiffs' request for TRO on January 4, 2006,¹ and set the current OSC re Preliminary Injunction.For the following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs' request for Preliminary Injunction.

II.BACKGROUND

PlaintiffJay Imperial("Imperial") is the Mayor of Rosemead (the "City").Both Imperial and City Council member Gary Taylor are presently the subjects of the February 7 recall election.PlaintiffLan Lee("Lee") is a resident of, and registered voter in, the City.Lee, whose first language is Chinese, speaks limited English.

The recall measures began in April 2005, when recall proponents filed a Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition.The Notice, which was written in English only, requested an election to recall Imperial and Council member Taylor ("Recall Petition").In May 2005, the City Clerk approved the Recall Petition as to form.From April 2005 to August 2005, the recall proponents circulated the Recall Petition in an effort to obtain the necessary number of signatures.Lee was allegedly one of the community members who was approached to sign the Recall Petition.In September 2005, the City Council received a Notice of Sufficiency from the City Clerk, which certified that the Recall Petition had been signed by at least 25% of the City's registered voters.Pursuant to the certification, on October 11, 2005, the City Council adopted a resolution ordering a recall election for February 7, 2006.

In the midst of the recall activities, the U.S. Department of Justice("DOJ") filed a lawsuit against the City in July 2005, based on alleged violations of Section 203 of the VRA ("Section 203").Generally, Section 203 provides that, in districts where at least a certain percentage of citizens are limited-English proficient, any materials relating to the electoral process must be bilingual or multilingual.In early September 2005, the parties settled the action through a Consent Decree.In the Consent Decree the City agreed to comply with the requirements of Section 203 in future elections.However, nowhere in the Complaint or Consent Decree is the February 7 election, or any recall election, in general, specifically mentioned.In November 2005, the Ninth Circuit issued Padilla v. Lever, which, for the first time, held that recall petitions are subject to the VRA's multilingual provisions.

On December 5, 2005, in light of the Ninth Circuit's holding in Padilla, the City Council adopted a resolution placing the recall election in abeyance until federal courts determined the validity of the Recall Petition.On December 13, 2005, the DOJ issued a letter to the City's Attorney stating that it would not seek to enjoin the February 7 election if it was reinstated.Thereafter, the City Council adopted a resolution on December 16, 2005 reinstating the February 7 election.On December 27, 2005, Plaintiffs filed the current Complaint, along with the Application for TRO.

III.JUDICIAL STANDARD

District courts in the Ninth Circuit use two tests when analyzing a request for a temporary or preliminary injunction: the "traditional-" and "alternative-" criteria tests.SeeSave Our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers,381 F.3d 905, 911-12(9th Cir.2004).Under the former test, the plaintiff must show "(1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff if preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and (4) advancement of the public interest (in certain cases)."Id. at 912(internal quotation and citation omitted).Under the latter test, the plaintiff must show either "a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor."Id.These two tests "represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases.They are not separate tests but rather outer reaches of a single continuum."Id.(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

IV.DISCUSSION

Were the Court to graph this case on the Ninth Circuit's continuum chart, Plaintiff would show strongly on both the "likelihood of success" axis, as well as the "irreparable harm" axis.As discussed below, the preliminary injunction is appropriate because (1) there is probable chance of success on the merits; and (2) there is a high degree of irreparable harm to Plaintiffs.

A.Plaintiffs Have Demonstrated a Probable Chance of Succeeding on the Merits

1.Procedural Challenge by Defendants

As an initial matter, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' action will likely fail, based on two procedural defects: (1)Plaintiffs have failed to name as defendants the recall proponents, who are indispensable parties to the action; and (2)Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue this action.For the following reasons, Defendants' arguments fail.

a. Defendants Fail to Demonstrate that the Recall Proponents are Indispensable Parties

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)("Rule 19(a)"), a party is indispensable if: (1) in his absence, complete relief cannot be accorded among those already party to the action, or (2)the party claims an interest in the action and is situated so that disposition of the action may (a) impair or impede the party's ability to protect that interest, or (b) leave any persons already party to the action subject to substantial risk of incurring double, multiple or inconsistent obligations.According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b)("Rule 19(b)"), if a person described in subsection (a) cannot be joined in the action, the court should determine whether the action should be dismissed.

Defendants' contention that the action should be dismissed for failure to name indispensable parties fails for two reasons.First, Defendants have offered only conclusory statements, without any evidence showing that the recall proponents are, in fact, indispensable as defined in Rule 19(a).Since Defendants have not shown an indispensable party under Rule 19(a), the inquiry under Rule 19(b) cannot be reached.Second, even if the recall proponents were parties indispensable under Rule 19(a), Defendants have failed to even argue, much less prove, that the parties cannot be joined in the action.

b. Defendants Fail to Show that Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Pursue this Action

To have standing, a litigant is required to have a concrete particularized injury, as opposed to a generalized grievance.U.S. v. Hays,515 U.S. 737, 742-743, 115 S.Ct. 2431, 132 L.Ed.2d 635(1995).Based on the facts known to the Court at this time, Plaintiffs have standing under this standard.

According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs will be subject to an illegal election, in violation of federal and state elections law, unless the election is enjoined (Compl., ¶¶ 19-21, 26, 30.)Imperial, who is suing in his individual capacity, is an elected official, and presumably a registered voter in the City of Rosemead.(ImperialDecl., ¶ 2.)Lee is also a registered voter in the City of Rosemead, where the subject election will occur.(LeeDecl., ¶ 2.)Based on their allegations, the injury both plaintiffs stand to suffer is being subjected, as voters, to an illegal election.Additionally, as the subject of the recall election, Imperial may be ousted from his elected position, also as a result of an allegedly illegal election.Therefore, Plaintiffs have alleged a concrete, particularized injury, as opposed to a generalized grievance, and have standing to pursue this action.

2.Substantive Issues

Plaintiffs have alleged three causes of action as the basis for permanently enjoining the February 7 election.Upon review and consideration of the facts and applicable law, the Court finds that Plaintiffs will probably prevail only as to the first cause of action for Violation of the VRA.However, prevailing on any one of their causes of action results in complete relief for Plaintiffs.

a. First Claim for Violation of the VRA

Section 203 of the VRA provides that, in voting districts where at least a certain percentage of registered voters are limited-English proficient, any voting materials relating to the electoral process must be printed in both English, as well as the language(s) appropriate for those voting districts, 42 U.S.C.1973aa-la.

It is undisputed that the City qualifies as a voting district subject to the provisions of Section 203.It is further undisputed that the Recall Petition circulated in April 2005 through August 2005 was written only in...