Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 24STCP02741, Date: 2024-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP02741    Hearing Date: August 30, 2024    Dept: 82

Zoë Mutaner v. Nikima Newsome, Case No. 24STCP02741

THE COURT DECIDES THIS EX PARTE APPLICATION WITHOUT A HEARING.  THIS ORDER WILL ISSUE THIS MORNING

Petitioner Zoë Muntaner (“Petitioner”), a self-represented party, filed a petition for writ of mandate against Nikima Newsome in her official capacity as the City Clerk/Elections Official, as well as the City of Santa Monica (the “City”) (collectively, “Respondents”).  Petitioner seeks to run for a position on the Santa Monica College Board of Trustees and was required to submit a nominating petition with 100 valid signatures.  The City forwarded Petitioner’s nomination petition to the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk of Los Angeles (the “County RR/CC”) for verification of signatures.  However, Petitioner was disqualified because one of her signature pages—containing 68 signatures—omitted the dates of circulation on the “declaration of circulator” section.  Therefore, the County RR/CC did not count those signatures, leaving Petitioner with less than the required 100 signatures.  Petitioner conceded that these facts were true in her petition and at the hearing on the petition for writ of mandate.  Instead, Petitioner alleged that Newsome and her staff verified that her documents “were good and in order” based upon which she argued that she is entitled to relief.  The City disputed those allegations.  At the hearing, Petitioner admitted that she was the circulator and gathered the signatures herself.    

Petitioner filed the petition for writ of mandate on August 27, 2024.  Petitioner filed an ex parte application to set the hearing before the County RR/CC’s deadline to change the ballot, which was August 29, 2024, according to Petitioner.  The court granted the ex parte application and heard the petition on August 28, 2024.  The court denied the petition because Petitioner did not name (or serve)  the County RR/CC, which was an indispensable party, as a respondent.  In the alternative, the court denied the petition on the merits.  The court found that even accepting Petitioner’s allegations are true, there was no basis to grant relief:

“Candidates are responsible for ensuring that their election paperwork is complete.  Indeed, Petitioner identifies no provision of the Election Code or any other law imposing this obligation on the city clerks who accept nominating petitions.  Therefore, any failure by the city clerk’s office is not a basis for relief.  Simply, if candidates rely on those without a legal duty to check election paperwork, they do so at their own peril.”

(Court’s Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandate, August 28, 2024, at 2.)  Moreover, because Petitioner was the circulator, the court found that she could have completed the “declaration of circulator” section before filing her election paperwork.  (Ibid.)  The court also found that because Petitioner waited until the day before the deadline to file her election paperwork, she did not leave herself enough time to gather more signatures in the event that some were not accepted.  (Ibid.)  The court incorporates its signed, written order of August 28, 2024, by reference.

Now, Petitioner has filed an “ex parte application for order advancing hearing date for first amended petition for writ of mandate.”  The court decides this ex parte application without a hearing, per Code of Civil Procedure section 166(a)(1).  This ex parte application is denied.  There is no first amended petition for writ of mandate on file.  Nor is there any legal basis to file one.  The court has ruled on the petition for writ of mandate; the case is closed.  Petitioner’s remedy is to seek appellate review, not to file an amended petition. 

In her ex parte application, Petitioner re-argues the merits of her case, arguing that she “relied on the evaluation of Assistant City Clerk, Maria Dacanay-Wesier and Election Official, Nikima Newsome and suffered a detriment as a result of [her] reliance on their professional misrepresentations.”  The court has already resolved this issue.  Therefore, this ex parte application is nothing more than a motion for reconsideration, and Petitioner does not satisfy the criteria for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.  Again, Petitioner’s remedy is to seek appellate review, not reconsideration on the same grounds the court addressed in denying the petition for writ of mandate.

Finally, Petitioner represented that the deadline to change the ballots was August 29, 2024.  Counsel for the County RR/CC (who specially appeared at the hearing on the petition for writ of mandate) confirmed that was the deadline.  Therefore, this issue now is moot. 

Based upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows:

1.       The court decides this ex parte application without a hearing, per Code of Civil Procedure section 166(a)(1), and vacates the hearing.

2.       The court denies the ex parte application for the reasons stated in this order.

3.       The court’s clerk shall serve a copy of this order upon Petitioner. 

4.       Petitioner shall provide notice and file proof of service with the court.