DAN STEGINK, ET AL VS. SARAH COFFEY, ET AL

09/03/2026 – Law and Motion Calendar Judge: Honorable Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 14 of 17

2:00 PM LINE 8 26-CIV-06367 DAN STEGINK, ET AL VS. SARAH COFFEY, ET AL

DAN STEGINK JASON A. BEZIS SARAH COFFEY MICHELLE MARCHETTA KENYON

WRIT OF MANDATE AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MERITS HEARING

TENTATIVE RULING:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

For the reasons stated below, Petitioners Dan Stegink and William Collins’s Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate is DENIED.

Petitioners seek an order requiring modification of the ballot question and impartial analysis for City of Pacifica Measure BB. Because the requested relief concerns official election materials, Petitioners must establish not only a statutory violation, but also that issuance of the requested writ will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of election materials. (Elec. Code, §§ 9295, 13314.)

The Court finds Petitioners have not met that burden. The declaration of Assistant Chief Elections Officer Jim Irizarry establishes that the County is operating under imminent ballot-production, translation, proofing, programming, and statutory mailing deadlines for the November 3, 2026 election. On this record, Petitioners have not demonstrated that the requested amendments can be implemented at this stage without substantial interference with the election process. The petition is therefore denied on that basis.

In light of the expedited nature of this election matter, the Court also reaches the merits to ensure a complete record for any appellate review. Were relief otherwise available, the Court would find that the phrase “To protect Pacifica’s long-term financial stability” is argumentative and likely to create prejudice in favor of Measure BB, and therefore does not satisfy Elections Code section 13119(c). (McDonough v. Superior Court (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1169.) The Court otherwise finds that Petitioners have not established a sufficient basis to order the remaining requested changes to the ballot question or to the City Attorney’s impartial analysis.

Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Mandate is DENIED.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare a written order consistent with this ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide notice of the ruling to all appearing parties as required by law. The Court further directs the parties’ attention to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) (eff. Jan. 1, 2024) regarding the form of proposed orders.