Munson v. City of Eureka CA1/2
Filed 12/3/25 Munson v. City of Eureka CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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; ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
BY THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed on November 5, 2025, be modified as follows: On page 2, line 4 of the first paragraph the word “reptation” is deleted and replaced with the word “repetition.” This modification does not change the judgment.
Dated:_____________ _____________________ Miller, Acting P. J.
1
Filed 11/5/25 Munson v. City of Eureka CA1/2 (unmodified opinion) NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)