Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 24STCP03660, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP03660    Hearing Date: December 9, 2024    Dept: 82

Zoe Muntaner v. Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, et al.

Case No. 24STCP03660

Order Denying Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order

            Petitioner Zoë Muntaner (“Petitioner”), a self-represented party, filed this petition for writ of mandate against the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk (the “County RR/CC”) and the City of Santa Monica (collectively, “Respondents”).  Petitioner sought to run for a position on the Santa Monica College Board of Trustees (the “Board”) and was required to submit a nominating petition with 100 valid signatures.  The City forwarded Petitioner’s nomination petition to the 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 filed a prior petition (which was Case Number 24STCP02741) and did not dispute these facts.  At the hearing on the prior petition for writ of mandate, Petitioner confirmed that the dates of circulation were missing from the petition.    

            Petitioner has filed a new petition, again challenging her disqualification, as well as other issues.  Petitioner seeks to “[d]isqualify candidates whose declaration of circulator point 3 violates the California Election Code, under Elections Code § 18202.”  (Petition for Writ of Mandamus (“Pet.”) p. 6 at ¶ 4.)  Petitioner also challenges the appointment of one board member to a vacancy, pursuant to Education Code section 5328.  Now, Petitioner seeks an injunction to stop the investiture ceremony, which is scheduled for January 10, 2025.  The court construes this ex parte application as an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction shall not issue.

            The purpose of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a decision on the merits.  (Major v. Miraverde Homeowners Ass’n. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 618, 623.)  This is a drastic remedy.  “To issue an injunction is the exercise of a delicate power, requiring great caution and sound discretion, and rarely, if ever, should be exercised in a doubtful case.”  (Willis v. Lauridson (1911) 161 Cal. 106, 117.)  This is especially true here, because Petitioner is asking this court to stop the transition of  the Board. 

Where, as here, the defendants are public agencies and the plaintiff seeks to restrain them in the performance of their duties, public policy considerations also come into play.  There is a general rule against enjoining public officers or agencies from performing their duties.  This rule would not preclude a court from enjoining unconstitutional or void acts, but to support a request for such relief the plaintiff must make a significant showing of irreparable harm.

(Tahoe Keys Property Owners’ Assn. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1471.) 

In deciding whether to grant injunctive relief before trial, the court looks to two factors, including “(1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief.”  (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 553-54.)  The factors are interrelated, with a greater showing on one permitting a lesser showing on the other.  (Dodge, Warren & Peters Ins. Services, Inc. v. Riley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1414, 1420.)  However, the party seeking an injunction must demonstrate at least a reasonable probability of success on the merits.  (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 73-74.)  The party seeking the injunction bears the burden of demonstrating both a likelihood of success on the merits and the occurrence of irreparable harm.  (Savage v. Trammell Crow Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1562, 1571.)

            The court denies this ex parte application.  As an initial matter, there is no exigency.  The court previously granted Petitioner’s ex parte application to set this case on an expedited schedule and scheduled the hearing on the petition for January 9, 2024, which is the day before the investiture.  The court will decide the writ on that date, so there is no need to issue an injunction at this point.  Putting that aside, Petitioner does not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits at this preliminary stage.  Therefore, the court orders as follows:

            1.         Petitioner’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause why an injunction shall not issue is denied.

            2.         The court’s clerk shall provide notice.