Munson v. City of Eureka CA1/2

Filed 11/5/25 Munson v. City of Eureka CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

MICHAEL MUNSON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A172094 v. CITY OF EUREKA et al., (Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. CV2301627) Defendants and Respondents;

Plaintiffs Michael Munson and Michelle Constantine Blackwell proposed an initiative for the ballot in the City of Eureka (City). On September 28, 2023, the City notified plaintiffs that its examination of the initiative petition signatures was complete. At its October 17, 2023 meeting, the city council voted to place the initiative on the November 2024 ballot. The initiative was subsequently rejected by the voters at that election. Meanwhile, plaintiffs had filed this action against the City, alleging it violated the Elections Code by taking action on the initiative at its October 17, 2023 council meeting instead of its earlier October 3, 2023 meeting. Plaintiffs do not contend any “serious harm” resulted from this, beyond the purported technical violation of the law. The trial court sustained the City’s demurrer without leave to amend on multiple grounds, including mootness, and dismissed the action with prejudice.

1

On appeal, plaintiffs concede the issue is moot but argue the trial court should have exercised its discretion to decide an otherwise moot issue because it raises a matter of substantial and continuing public interest capable of reptation yet evading review. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs were the official proponents of an initiative for “changes to the City’s General Plan relating to residential housing and public parking in the City’s downtown area.” They submitted an initiative petition with signatures to the city clerk on August 28, 2023. Elections Code section 9210, subdivision (b),1 requires an election official to examine and determine the number of signatures affixed to an initiative petition. On September 28, 2023, the City notified plaintiffs that examination of the petition signatures was complete and the matter would be placed on the next regular city council agenda for its October 17,2023 meeting. Sections 9114 and 9115, subdivision (f), require an election official to certify the results of the examination “at the next regular meeting of the board.” On October 3, 2023, plaintiffs sent a letter to the City contending that its “impending failure” to certify the results at its council meeting later that same evening would violate section 9115. The City responded that it could not put the matter on for October 3rd because that agenda had already been published, and section 9115 could not be reasonably interpreted to conflict with agenda notice requirements under the Brown Act (Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.). (Gov. Code, § 54954.2. subd. (a)(1) [posting of agenda “at least” 72 hours before regular meeting]; id. § 54953.7 [providing for requirements beyond “minimum standards” in Brown Act that allow “greater access” to