….WILDOMAR LOST THE FIRST ROUND
Despite the whining about “frivolous” lawsuits, when the City of Wildomar defense team’s first line of defense (a weak Statute of Limitations argument) is summarily shot down by the judge, the citizens of Wildomar should be prepared for an eventual Court-ordered reconsideration of the “at-large” versus “by-district” process.
Yesterday’s article in the Californian covers the proceeding, and reports the result yesterday’s hearing, as follows:
The primary reason that I think Martha’s lawsuit is meritorious, and not frivolous, is that her legal argument smartly pits one election in 2008, where a substantial majority of those who voted in the “cityhood” election also voted to elect future city councils by district, against a subsequent election in 2009, where a smaller majority in a smaller turnout overturned the previous vote.
This is not about a developer with an economic interest fighting City Hall, where the Court would be loathe to overturn the citizen’s right to choose. This case is, quite simply, “voter versus voter,” making the outcome less predictable.
And therein lies the crux of this litigation. A substantial legal argument is being made, by the plaintiffs, that returning to an “at-large” voting process was not a viable option in 2009, or even now, for that matter, according to the California Constitution.
In the face of that argument, the attorney for the City Council has unsuccessfully argued that the plaintiffs waited too long to file a lawsuit.
A lawsuit is not “frivolous” just because you disagree with it, especially when the Court disagrees with the City’s response.
Comments can be made to email@example.com.
In my opinion, the City of Wildomar’s Statute of Limitations defense is “frivolous,” and now, in the face of the Court’s ruling, “specious. “
Please click on the following link for a definition of specious:
Not surprisingly, the Wildomar City Council will continue to whine while they spend limited resources fighting this litigation.