Supreme Court
Docket (Register of Actions)
PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE v. PADILLA (DRAPER)
Division SF
Division SF
Case Number S249859
| Date | Description | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 07/09/2018 | Petition for writ of mandate/prohibition filed |
Petitioner: Planning and Conservation League |
| 07/09/2018 | Retained for consideration (mandate/prohibition) | |
| 07/10/2018 | Received: | Service copy of petition for writ of mandate filed electronically on 7/9/2018. |
| 07/10/2018 | Preliminary opposition to writ petition requested |
(from AG-Sacramento/Timothy Draper) Dear Counsel: Pursuant to rule 8.487 of the California Rules of Court, the court has directed that I request a preliminary opposition to the petition in the above referenced matter. The petition was served on your office on July 9, 2018. The preliminary opposition is to be served electronically upon petitioner and filed electronically in this court on or before July 13, 2018. Petitioner will then have until and including July 16, 2018, to file and serve electronically an informal reply to the preliminary opposition. Your preliminary opposition should address all issues raised in the petition. This request for a preliminary response should be expedited by your office and no request for extension of time is contemplated. |
| 07/13/2018 | Preliminary opposition to writ petition filed |
Respondent: Alex Padilla |
| 07/13/2018 | Preliminary opposition to writ petition filed | Real Party in Interest: Timothy Draper |
| 07/16/2018 | Reply to preliminary opposition filed |
Petitioner: Planning and Conservation League |
| 07/17/2018 | Received: | one hard copy of the reply to preliminary opposition filed 07/16/18. |
| 07/18/2018 | Order to show cause issued |
Time constraints require the court to decide immediately whether to permit Proposition 9 to be placed on the November 6, 2018, ballot pending final resolution of this matter. Although our past decisions establish that it is usually more appropriate to review challenges to ballot propositions or initiative measures after an election (Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1005), we have also made clear that in some instances, when a substantial question has been raised regarding the proposition's validity and the "hardships from permitting an invalid measure to remain on the ballot" outweigh the harm potentially posed by "delaying a proposition to a future election," it may be appropriate to review a proposed measure before it is placed on the ballot. (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Padilla (2016) 62 Cal.4th 486, 494; see also id., at pp. 496-497; accord, American Federation of Labor v. Eu (1984) 36 Cal.3d 687, 697.) Because significant questions have been raised regarding the proposition's validity, and because we conclude that the potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election, respondent Alex Padilla, as Secretary of State of the State of California, is directed to refrain from placing Proposition 9 on the November 6, 2018, ballot. Both respondent Padilla and real party in interest Timothy Draper are ordered to show cause before this court, when the above matter is called on calendar, why the relief sought by petitioner, Planning and Conservation League, should not be granted. The returns of respondent and real party in interest are to be served and filed on or before Monday, August 20, 2018. Petitioner is ordered to serve and file its reply within 30 days of the timely-filed returns. Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Chin, Corrigan, Liu, Cuéllar and Kruger, JJ. |
| 07/18/2018 | Letter sent to: | order mailed and emailed to parties. |
| 08/09/2018 | Written return filed |
Respondent: Alex Padilla |
| 08/09/2018 | Written return filed | Real Party in Interest: Timothy Draper |
| 08/09/2018 | Filed: | Request for Order Granting Petition and Entering Judgment in Favor of Petitioner; and Notice of Intent to File Fee Application by attorney Robert Mockler for petitioner |
| 09/12/2018 | Order filed |
On August 9, 2018, petitioner (the party challenging the validity of the initiative measure) and real party in interest (the proponent of the initiative measure) filed separate documents in this court. Petitioner filed a request for an order granting the petition and directing the Secretary of State to refrain from placing the challenged initiative measure on the November 2018 ballot or on any future ballot. Real party in interest filed a document stating that he "do[es] not object to the Court making its [prior] order permanent without further briefing or hearing." Under the circumstances, we construe the real party in interest's filing as consenting to the entry of a stipulated judgment in favor of petitioner. The court has received no objection to proceeding in this fashion. Accordingly, the petition is granted and the Secretary of State is directed to refrain from placing the challenged initiative measure on the November 2018 ballot or any future ballot. Petitioner's request that the court retain jurisdiction to consider a motion for attorney's fees is denied. Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Chin, Corrigan, Liu, Cuéllar and Kruger, JJ. |
| 09/28/2018 | Filed: |
motion for award of section 1021.5 attorney's fee. by Carlyle W. Hall, Jr., counsel |
| 10/02/2018 | Time extended to consider modification or rehearing | The time for granting or denying rehearing in the above-entitled case is hereby extended to and including November 11, 2018 or the date upon which rehearing is either granted or denied, whichever occurs first. |
| 10/24/2018 | Rehearing denied |
Click here to request automatic e-mail notifications about this case.