Santa Monica Election Litigation
Pico Neighborhood Association and Maria Loya v. City of Santa Monica in the matter of California Voting Rights. Case Number BC616804
Frequently Asked Questions
April 12, 2016
Complaint – Plaintiffs file their original complaint challenging the City’s at-large election system.
February 23, 2017
First Amended Complaint – Plaintiffs’ file their first amended complaint.
March 30, 2017
Demurrer to First Amended Complaint – City argues that the First Amended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under either the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) or the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution.
Supporting Documents filed by the City:
Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice - Declaration of Daniel Adler – Attaches supporting exhibits cited in the demurrer.
May 9, 2017
Opposition to Demurrer – Plaintiffs oppose the City’s demurrer.
Supporting Documents filed by Plaintiffs:
Objection to Request for Judicial Notice
Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice – Attaches supporting exhibits cited in opposition.
May 22, 2017
City's Reply in Support of Demurrer – City filing responding to Plaintiffs’ opposition.
Supporting Documents filed by City:
Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrer
June 7, 2017
Order Overruling City's Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint – Court denies demurrer and orders City to file answer to FAC.
June 27, 2017
City's Answer to the First Amended Complaint – City files its response to the allegations in the FAC and asserts affirmative defenses.
March 29, 2018
City's Motion for Summary Judgment – City contends that judgment should be issued in its favor because there are no triable issues of material fact on either Plaintiffs’ CVRA claim or their Equal Protection claim.
Supporting Documents filed by City:
City's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts
City's Request for Judicial Notice - Declaration of Daniel Adler – Attaches supporting exhibits for summary judgment motion.
Exhibit AA: Peter Morrison Declaration
Exhibit A: Elected Representative Roster
Exhibit C: Order Overruling City's Demurrer
Exhibit D: Order on Legal Issue Regarding Cumulative Voting in Soliz Case
Exhibit E: Demand Letter from Plaintiff
Exhibit G: 1948 and 1941 City Charters
Exhibit H: Exhibit 2 from Kevin Shenkman Declaration
May 31, 2018
Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment – Plaintiffs oppose City’s motion for summary judgment, and contend that service of the motion on Plaintiffs was untimely.
Supporting Documents filed by Plaintiffs:
Plaintiff's Separate Statement in Opposition – Plaintiffs contest that facts cited by City are undisputed and assert additional facts they contend are undisputed.
Declaration of J. Morgan Kousser
June 7, 2018
City's Reply in Support of its Summary Judgment Motion – City responds to Plaintiffs’ opposition
Supporting Documents filed by the City:
City's Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence – City states objections to certain evidence submitted by Plaintiffs
City's Reply in Support of Separate Statement – City responds to Plaintiffs’ contentions regarding disputed and undisputed facts
June 14, 2018
City's Motion for Order Rejecting Plaintiffs' Untimely Service Argument – City argues that Plaintiffs’s untimely service argument should be rejected because they cannot show any prejudice from late service.
Supporting Documents filed by City:
June 18, 2018
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to City’s Motion for Order Rejecting Plaintiffs’ Untimely Service Argument – Plaintiffs respond to City’s arguments regarding untimely service
Supporting Documents filed by Plaintiffs:
June 19, 2018
Orders Denying City's Motion – Court issues two orders. One denies the City’s motion for an order rejecting Plaintiffs’ untimely service argument. The second denies the City’s motion for summary judgment based on untimely service.
July 2, 2018
City’s Writ Petition – In the Court of Appeal, City challenges the trial court’s orders denying its summary judgment motion.
July 9, 2018
Letter Response to Writ Petition – Plaintiffs respond to the City’s petition requesting that the Court of Appeal overturn the trial court’s orders denying the City’s summary judgment motion.
July 11, 2018
Reply in Support of Writ Petition – The City replies to Plaintiffs’ response, further explaining why the Court of Appeal should overturn the trial court’s orders denying the City’s summary judgment motion.
July 12, 2018
Order Denying Writ Petition – Court of Appeal denies City’s petition for a writ overturning the trial court’s orders denying the City’s summary judgment motion.
July 30, 2018
City’s Trial Brief – Brief filed by City discussing legal and factual issues anticipated to arise at trial.
August 1, 2018
City's Opening Statement – City's Opening Statement Presentation presented at trial.
September 11, 2018
Tentative Ruling on City’s Sanctions Motion – Court issues tentative order requiring plaintiffs and their counsel to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $21,612.50 based on misuse of discovery process. (Order made final on November 8, 2018 – see entry below.)
September 25, 2018
Plaintiffs’ Closing Brief– Plaintiffs’ closing brief presented at the conclusion of trial.
October 15, 2018
City’s Closing Brief – City’s closing brief presented at the conclusion of trial.
October 25, 2018
Plaintiffs’ Rebuttal Closing – Plaintiffs’ rebuttal closing brief presented at the conclusion of trial.
November 8, 2018
Court’s Tentative Ruling – Tentative ruling by the court.
Minute Order re Sanctions – Court issues final order requiring plaintiffs and their counsel to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $21,612.50 based on misuse of discovery process.
November 15, 2018
Request for Statement of Decision – Filing by the City requesting that the Court provide an explanation of the legal and factual bases for its tentative decision.
November 19, 2018
Plaintiffs’ Remedies Brief – Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the remedies they seek to have the court impose.
Supporting Documents filed by Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs’ Proposed Seven-District Map – The district map proposed by plaintiffs, which was prepared by plaintiffs’ expert and offered by plaintiffs as an exhibit at trial.
November 26, 2018
Response to Request for Statement of Decision – Plaintiffs’ response to the City’s request that the Court provide an explanation of the legal and factual bases for its tentative decision.
November 30, 2018
City’s Answering Brief Regarding Remedies - City's arguments regarding remedies.
November 28, 2018
Order re Statement of Decision – Order directing Plaintiffs to file and serve a proposed statement of decision on or before January 2, 2019.
December 4, 2018
Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief Regarding Remedies – Plaintiffs’ response to City’s arguments regarding remedies.
December 14, 2018
Court’s First Amended Tentative Decision – Amended tentative ruling by the court.
December 21, 2018
Request for Statement of Decision re: First Amended Tentative Decision – Filing by the City requesting that the Court provide an explanation of the legal and factual bases for its first amended tentative decision.
December 31, 2018
Ex Parte Application for Clarification – Filing by plaintiffs seeking clarification from court regarding its amended tentative ruling re remedies.
January 2, 2019
Response to Ex Parte Application – Filing by City responding to plaintiffs’ request for clarification.
January 3, 2019
Plaintiffs’ Proposed Statement of Decision – Plaintiffs’ proposed explanation of the factual and legal bases for the court’s tentative decision.
Plaintiffs’ Proposed Judgment – Plaintiffs’ proposal for the judgment to be issued by the court.
January 18, 2019
City’s Request for Judicial Notice – City’s request for the Court to take notice of Santa Monica’s 2018 election results.
January 25, 2019
Plaintiffs file four documents in response to the City’s Objections to their proposed statement of decision and judgment:
Plaintiffs’ Response to Objections to Proposed Statement of Decision
Plaintiffs’ Response to Objections to Proposed Judgment
Plaintiffs’ Corrected Proposed Judgment
Plaintiffs’ Objections to Request for Judicial Notice
February 15, 2019
Order re Objections to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Judgment – Court denies City’s objections to Plaintiffs’ proposed judgment.
Order re Objections to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Statement of Decision – Court denies the majority of the City’s objections to Plaintiffs’ proposed statement of decision.
Statement of Decision – With minor changes, Court adopts Plaintiffs’ proposed statement of decision.
Judgment – Court adopts Plaintiffs’ corrected proposed judgment.
February 22, 2019
February 28, 2019
City’s Ex Parte Application (a) to confirm that paragraph 9 of the February 13, 2019, judgment is a mandatory injunction and thus stayed pending appeal, or (b) in the alternative, to stay pending appeal the enforcement of paragraph 9.
Declaration of Denise Anderson-Warren
Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey B. Lewis
March 6, 2019
Order Denying City’s Ex Parte Application to Confirm
March 8, 2019
City’s Petition for Writ of Supersedeas Seeking Immediate Stay
March 18, 2019
Stay Order – Order from Court of Appeal temporarily staying paragraph 9 of the February 13, 2019 judgment.
March 21, 2019
Respondents’ Opposition to Petition for Writ of Supersedeas – Plaintiffs’ opposition to the City’s petition for a stay pending appeal.
Motion to Strike – Plaintiffs’ motion to strike portions of the City’s petition referencing the Declaration of Jeffrey Lewis.
March 23, 2019
City’s Reply in Support of Petition for Writ of Supersedeas Seeking Immediate Stay
City’s Opposition to Motion to Strike
March 27, 2019
Order Granting City’s Writ Petition – Court of Appeal order granting City’s writ petition and staying judgment pending appeal.
March 28, 2019
Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Costs – Filing by plaintiffs setting out costs (other than attorneys’ fees) they seek to recover from the City.
April 12, 2019
City’s Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, Tax Costs – Filing by City seeking to strike memorandum of costs due to late filing or, in the alternative, reduce allowable costs to exclude costs for which recovery is precluded by statute and unreasonable or unnecessary costs.
Supporting Declaration of Kahn Scolnick
April 29, 2019
City’s Motion for Calendar Preference – Filing by City seeking expedited briefing and argument to facilitate a November 2020 Council election.
Supporting Declaration of Kahn Scolnick
May 2, 2019
Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion for Calendar Preference
Supporting Declaration of Kevin Shenkman
May 3, 2019
City’s Reply in Support of Motion for Calendar Preference
Supporting Declaration of Kahn Scolnick
May 6, 2019
Order granting City’s Motion for Calendar Preference
June 3, 2019
Notice of Motion and Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses
Proposed Order
Supporting Declaration of Milton Grimes
Supporting Declaration of Rex Parris
Supporting Declaration of Robert Rubin
Supporting Declaration of Kevin Shenkman
Supporting Declaration of Hon. Margaret M. Grignon (ret.)
Supporting Declaration of Barrett S. Litt
June 12, 2019
Plaintiff’s Opposition to City’s Motion to Tax Costs
Supporting Declaration of Milton Grimes
Supporting Declaration of Mary Ruth Hughes
Supporting Declaration of Rex Parris
Supporting Declaration of Robert Rubin
Supporting Declaration of Kevin Shenkman
June 18, 2019
City’s Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Or, in the Alternative, to Tax Costs
Supporting Declaration of Kahn Scolnick
October 18, 2019
City’s Opening Brief in the Court of Appeal
December 27, 2019
Plaintiffs’ Answering Brief in the Court of Appeal
January 21, 2020
City’s Reply Brief in the Court of Appeal
February 4, 2020
Amicus Brief – filed by California League of Cities and California Special Districts Association in support of City
Amicus Brief – filed by Santa Monica Transparency Project in support of City’s position on remedies
Amicus Brief – filed by former State Senator Richard Polanco, three Palmdale council members, and one San Juan Capistrano council member in support of Plaintiffs
Amicus Brief – filed by FairVote, a non-profit headquartered in Maryland, in support of Plaintiffs
February 10, 2020
City’s Response to Amicus Briefs – Response to amicus briefs filed by Fair Vote and current and former public officials
Plaintiffs’ Response to Amicus Briefs – Response to amicus briefs filed by California League of Cities and Santa Monica Transparency Project
May 12, 2020
City’s Letter re Oral Argument – Letter requesting that oral argument be scheduled to permit decision by July 10, 2020
June 9, 2020
Notice – Notice from court setting oral argument for June 30, 2020 at 1:00 pm (to be conducted remotely via teleconference)
City’s Request for Oral Argument – Requesting 30 minutes of oral argument
June 15, 2020
Plaintiffs’ Request for Oral Argument – Requesting 30 minutes of oral argument
July 9, 2020
Court of Appeal Opinion – The Court of Appeal issued its opinion ruling in favor of the City on both claims raised by Plaintiffs, reversing the trial court’s judgment, and ordering the trial court to enter judgment in the City’s favor.
July 24, 2020
Petition for Rehearing – Plaintiffs filed a petition requesting rehearing by the Court of Appeal.
August 5, 2020
Order Denying Petition for Rehearing.
August 18, 2020
Petition for Review – Plaintiffs filed a petition requesting review by the California Supreme Court.
August 31, 2020
Amicus Curiae Letter – Letter from the Dolores Huerta Foundation in support of Plaintiffs’ petition for review.
Amicus Curiae Letter – Letter from Coalition of 2000-2001 California Legislators in support of Plaintiffs’ petition for review.
September 4, 2020
Response to Petition for Review – City’s response to Plaintiffs’ request for review by the California Supreme Court.
September 8, 2020
Amicus Curiae Letter – Letter from California Secretary of State in support of Plaintiffs’ petition for review.
September 10, 2020
Amicus Curiae Letter – Letter from FairVote in support of Plaintiffs’ petition for review.
September 11, 2020
Amicus Curiae Letter – Letter from three California legislative caucuses (Latino Legislative Caucus, Legislative Black Caucus, and Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus) in support of Plaintiffs’ petition for review.
Amicus Curiae Letter – Letter from Asian Americans Advancing Justice—Asian Law Caucus, Asian Americans Advancing Justice—Los Angeles, the Asian Law Alliance, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, and Khmer Girls in Action in support of Plaintiffs’ petition for review.
Amicus Curiae Letter – Letter from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Southern California in support of Plaintiffs’ petition for review.
Amicus Curiae Letter – Letter from the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project in support of Plaintiffs’ petition for review.
September 14, 2020
Reply in Support of Petition for Review – Plaintiffs’ reply in support of their request for review by the California Supreme Court.
Amicus Curiae Letter – Letter from Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area in support of Plaintiffs’ Petition for Review.
September 15, 2020
Amicus Curiae Letter – Letter from California Latino School Boards Association and California Association of Black School educators in support of Plaintiffs’ petition for review.
September 18, 2020
Amicus Curiae Letter – Letter from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the NALEO Educational Fund in support of Plaintiffs’ petition for review.
September 22, 2020
Amicus Curiae Letter – Letter from the California League of Cities and the California Special Districts Association in support of the City’s response to Plaintiffs’ petition for review.
October 21, 2020
Amicus Curiae Letter – Letter from the Latino Caucus of California Counties in support of Plaintiffs’ petition for review.
Petition for Review Granted – The California Supreme Court granted the petition for review and ordered the parties to brief the following issue: “What must a plaintiff prove in order to establish vote dilution under the California Voting Rights Act?” The Supreme Court also ordered the Court of Appeal’s opinion depublished.
December 21, 2020
Petitioners’ Opening Brief – Plaintiffs’ opening brief in the California Supreme Court.
March 22, 2021
City’s Answering Brief – City’s answering brief in the California Supreme Court.
City’s Motion for Judicial Notice – City’s motion requesting that the Supreme Court take judicial notice of the 2020 City Council election results, certain candidate statements from that election, and the transcript of the oral argument in the Court of Appeal.
April 6, 2021
Petitioners’ Opposition to City’s Motion for Judicial Notice
May 12, 2021
Petitioners’ Reply Brief – Plaintiffs’ reply brief in the California Supreme Court.
Petitioners’ Motion for Judicial Notice – Plaintiffs’ motion requesting that the Supreme Court take judicial notice of the legislative history of the CVRA.
April 12, 2021
City’s Reply in Support of City’s Motion for Judicial Notice
May 26, 2021
City’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Judicial Notice
May 27, 2021
Amicus Curiae Brief – Brief from FairVote in support of Plaintiffs
Amicus Curiae Brief – Brief from John K. Haggerty, Pro Per, in support of City
June 3, 2021
Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judicial Notice
June 7, 2021
Amicus Curiae Brief – Brief from League of Women Voters of Santa Monica, the Alliance of Santa Monica Latino and Black Voters, the Human Relations Council Santa Monica Bay Area, and the Community for Excellent Public Schools in support of City
Amicus Curiae Request for Judicial Notice – Request for judicial notice of City of Irvine correspondence
June 10, 2021
Amicus Curiae Brief -- Brief from Bruce A. Wessel in support of neither party
Amicus Curiae Brief -- Brief from Amici Scholars in support of Plaintiffs
June 11, 2021
Amicus Curiae Brief – Brief from Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Los Angeles, and Asian Law Alliance in support of Plaintiffs
Amicus Curiae Brief – Brief from Oscar de la Torre in support of Plaintiffs
Amicus Curiae Brief – Brief of League of California Cities and California Special Districts Association in support of City
Amicus Curiae Brief – Brief of UCLA Voting Rights Project in support of Plaintiffs
June 16, 2021
Plaintiffs’ Response to Amicus Curiae Brief – Plaintiffs’ response to the amicus curiae brief frilled by John K. Haggerty
June 18, 2021
Opposition to Motion for Judicial Notice – Plainitiffs’ opposition to the motion for judicial notice filed by amicus curiae League of Women Voters of Santa Monica, et al.
June 24, 2021
Reply in Support of Motion for Judicial Notice – Amicus Curiae League of Women Voters of Santa Monica, et al., reply in support of motion for judicial notice
July 8, 2021
Motion to Strike Amicus Curiae Brief – Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the amicus curiae brief of League of Women Voters of Santa Monica, et al.
July 12, 2021
Amicus Curiae Brief – Brief of California Attorney General Rob Bonta in support of neither party.
July 19, 2021
Opposition to Motion to Strike – League of Women Voters of Santa Monica, et al., opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to strike their amicus curiae brief
August 11, 2021
Response to Amicus Curiae Briefs – City’s Consolidated Answer to Amicus Briefs
Response to Amicus Curiae Brief – Plaintiffs’ Response to Amicus Brief of California Attorney General
Response to Amicus Curiae Brief – Plaintiffs’ Response to Amicus Brief of League of California Cities, et al.
Response to Amicus Curiae Brief – Plaintiffs’ Response to Amicus Brief of League of Women Voters, et al.
Response to Amicus Curiae Brief – Plaintiffs’ Response to Amicus Brief of Bruce Wessel
April 13, 2022
Amicus Curiae Brief with Application to File Late Brief – Brief of Steven Bosworth and L. Stevan Leonard
May 13, 2022
Response to Amicus Curiae Brief – Plaintiffs’ Response to Amicus Brief of Steven Bosworth and L. Stevan Leonard
November 16, 2022
Amicus curiae brief – Brief filed by Stephen Bosworth and L.
Stevan Leonard
December 21, 2022
January 5, 2023
Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice – Brief
filed by Plaintiff and Respondent Pico Neighborhood Association
September 20, 2023
Opinion of the California Supreme Court
December 6, 2023
Supplemental Opening Brief after Remand – Brief filed by Appellant and Defendant City of Santa Monica
December 6, 2023
Supplemental Opening Brief after Remand – Brief filed by Plaintiff and Respondent Pico Neighborhood Association
June 25, 2024
Motion to Re-Issue Judgment- Motion filed by Pico Neighborhood Association
Supporting Declaration - Declaration of Kevin Shenkman in support of to Motion to Re-Issue filed by Pico Neighborhood Association
June 26, 2024
Ex Parte Application - Application to Advance Hearing on Motion to Re-Issue filed by Plaintiff Pico Neighborhood Association
Supporting Declaration - Declaration of Kevin Shenkman in support of Application to Advance Hearing on Motion to Re-Issue filed by Pico Neighborhood Association
June 26, 2024
Opposition- Opposition to Ex Parte Applicaiton to Advance Hearing filed by City of Santa Monica
Supporting Declaration - Declaration of Kahn A. Scolnick in Opposition to Ex Parte filed by City of Santa Monica
Motion Re Further Proceedings on Remand - Brief filed by City of Santa Monica
Supporting Declaration - Declaration of Kahn A. Scolnick in support of Motion re Further Proceedings filed by City of Santa Monica
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10
June 27, 2024
Minute Order - Filed by Court
July 10, 2024
Motion- Motion to Reissue Judgment filed by Pico Neighborhood Association
August 1, 2024
Reply- Reply in support of Motion to Reissue Judgment filed by Pico Neighborhood Association
Declaration- Supplemental Declaration of Kevin Shenkman in support of Motion to Reissue Judgment filed by Pico Neighborhood Association