Pariset v. Superior Court CA3

Filed 1/5/21 Pariset v. Superior Court CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

MICHELLE PARISET, C092381

Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. 34202000280755CUMCGDS) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY,

Respondent;

CITY OF SACRAMENTO et al,

Real Parties in Interest.

The principal question in this case is whether an initiative entitled the Sacramento Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Charter Amendment (initiative) constitutes an impermissible revision or permissible amendment of the City of Sacramento’s (City) charter. The Sacramento County Superior Court (superior court) found the initiative impermissibly proposed to revise the City’s charter, thereby excluding the initiative from the ballot for the November 3, 2020, election (election). We stayed the superior court’s order pending our consideration of the issue and directed the City to submit, and the Sacramento County Registrar to place, the initiative on the ballot for the election. The

1

City and Sacramento County Registrar complied with our directive; the initiative was submitted to the voters. On our own motion, we take judicial notice of Sacramento County’s certified election results.1 (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (h); see Deschene v. Pinole Point Steel Co. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 33, 37, fn. 2 [taking judicial notice on own motion]; Edelstein v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 29 Cal.4th 164, 171, fn. 3 [taking judicial notice of, among other things, election results].) The certified election results reveal the voters rejected the initiative by a vote of 60.39 percent against and 39.61 percent in favor of the initiative’s passage.2 We now dismiss the petition for writ of mandate as moot. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The City filed a complaint for declaratory relief against Michelle Pariset in the superior court, requesting a declaration relieving the City of its duty to place the initiative on the ballot for the election. The City asserted, among other things, the initiative would unlawfully revise the City’s charter in violation of the California Constitution. Pariset, a proponent of the initiative, filed a cross-petition for writ of mandate against the City and its city council, seeking an order commanding the City and its city council to submit the initiative to the voters. The City moved for judgment on the pleadings as to its complaint. The superior court granted the City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Pariset’s petition for writ of mandate. The superior court found “the Initiative seeks to substantially alter the City’s existing governmental framework and balance of