Jauregui v. City of Palmdale CA2/5

Filed 6/10/15 Jauregui v. City of Palmdale CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

JUAN JAUREGUI et al., B253713

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC483039) v.

CITY OF PALMDALE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark V. Mooney, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Matthew Ditzhazy, City Attorney, and Noel Doran, Assistant City Attorney; Nielson Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni, Marguerite M. Leoni and Christopher Skinnell; Richards, Watson & Gershon, Mitchell E. Abbott, Aaron C. O’Dell and Kyle H. Brochard for Defendant and Appellant. Shenkman & Hughes, Kevin I. Shenkman, Mary R. Hughes and John L. Jones II; Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Morris J. Baller, Laura L. Ho and Katrina L. Eiland; R. Rex Parris Law Firm, R. Rex Parris and Brendan Gilbert; Robert Rubin; and Milton C. Grimes for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Defendant, City of Palmdale, appeals from a December 23, 2013 injunctive order to elect its city council through district-based elections. The injunctive order was secured by plaintiffs, Juan Jauregui, Miguel Holly and V. Jesse Smith. After the completion of briefing, the parties entered into settlement negotiations conducted by Retired Presiding Justice Steven Stone. As a result, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which provides for district-based elections and the payment of attorney fees. The parties have submitted a joint motion to modify and affirm the December 23, 2013 injunctive order. We grant the motion and direct that the December 23, 2013 injunctive order be modified as well as a subsequent attorney fee order. In addition, a pre-December 30, 2013 order is to be modified as provided for in the settlement agreement. Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging as a sole cause of action an alleged violation of the California Voting Rights Act. (Elec. Code, §§ 14025-14032; see Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 660, 668.) Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint alleges that the use of an at-large system for electing city council members diluted the votes of Latino, Latina and African-American residents. On August 27, 2013, the trial court issued a statement of decision which: found racially polarized voting had occurred; ruled the use of an at-large method for city council elections resulted in the dilution of the rights of voters who are members of a protected class; and overruled various other challenges to the application of the California Voting Rights Act. On September 30, 2013, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction which barred the use of an at-large system for electing city council members. On October 4, 2013, defendant appealed from the issuance of the preliminary injunction. On December 23, 2013, judgment was entered in plaintiffs’ favor. The final judgment requires that city council members be elected through district-based elections to be held in November of even-numbered years. On January 8, 2014, defendant appealed from the December 23, 2013 judgment. On May 28, 2014, we affirmed the order issuing the preliminary injunction. We reached two principal conclusions. Initially, we concluded that the California Voting Rights Act could apply to a charter city. (Jauregui v. City of Palmdale (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 781, 794-804.) Further, we ruled that the trial court had the authority to