The Red Brennan Group v. Shea CA4/2
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. CIVSB2218598
- Trial judge
- Winston S. Keh
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
Filed 2/26/24 The Red Brennan Group v. Shea CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and Parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO THE RED BRENNAN GROUP, Plaintiff and Appellant, E080868 v. (Super.Ct.No. CIVSB2218598) STEPHANIE SHEA, as Registrar, etc., OPINION Defendant and Respondent;
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Winston S. Keh, Judge. Affirmed.
Michel & Associates, C.D. Michel, Joseph Di Monda, and Alexander A. Frank for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Jolena E. Grider, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.
The Sutton Law Firm, Bradley W. Hertz; Sanders Political Law and Nicholas L. Sanders for Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Jonathan M. Coupal, Timothy A. Bittle, and Laura E. Dougherty for Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Petitioner below, The Red Brennan Group (the Brennan Group), a group advocating for small government and government accountability, filed a petition seeking extraordinary relief to enjoin Real Party in Interest, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors (the Board) from putting an initiative, Measure D, a government sponsored ballot measure to amend the county charter, on the November 8, 2022, ballot. The SHWLWLRQ DOOHJHG WKDW OHDVXUH oulltprht eGett DSI WHG D Measure K, passed in November 2020, which was then the subject of judicial review and appeal. Measure K had provided that members of the Board may only serve one four- year term, and it limiteda B RDUG_ P Hebhipdrsukiffito $5,000 per month, inclusive of all benefits. However, that measure never took effect because the Board sued to invalidate Measure K, the trial court ruled in its favor, and the judgment was appealed by both sides. In July 2022, we issued our tentative opinion in that appeal, indicating our LQFOLQDWLRQ WR UHYHUVH WKH WULOQ féwRIWU WIV UXO later, the Board introduced Measure D.
Measure D provided term limits of no more than three four-year terms as well as setting FRPSHQVDWLRQ WR %&XRDUG PHPEHUV EDVHG RQ The final opinion was not filed until well after the election.
¢ ‘