A San Diego judge has tentatively ruled in favor of the Association for the City of La Jolla in its ongoing legal battle with the city of San Diego over La Jolla\u2019s potential cityhood, saying the process \u201ccan move forward.\u201d<\/p>\n
The ruling by Superior Court Judge Judy Bae, released Oct. 23, grants a motion from the cityhood advocates that argues a city lawsuit filed in June challenging the incorporation process is a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP \u2014 what the association calls a \u201cmeritless attempt to obstruct democratic participation and silence a public interest effort through costly litigation.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
If Bae makes the tentative ruling final at a hearing scheduled for 9:10 a.m. Friday, Oct. 24, the city\u2019s lawsuit would be dismissed and the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission, a regional agency that provides guidance to communities seeking to become cities, can move ahead with the next steps in the cityhood process, which include a comprehensive review of the Association for the City of La Jolla\u2019s application, submitted in January.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Representatives of ACLJ and the city could not immediately be reached for comment about the tentative ruling.<\/p>\n
ACLJ<\/a> filed its anti-SLAPP motion Aug. 25, contending the lawsuit was an attempt \u201cto squelch the First Amendment rights of the association, its members and the thousands of La Jolla residents who signed the petition to pursue the possibility of creating a new city.\u201d<\/p>\n ACLJ set out last year on a six-month effort to gather signatures from 25% of La Jolla\u2019s registered voters, or 6,536, in support of the separation initiative \u2014 a required step to keep the cityhood application process going.<\/p>\n In mid-December, the group submitted nearly 8,000 signatures<\/a> for review and validation by the San Diego County registrar of voters office and LAFCO.\u00a0<\/p>\n However, the registrar of voters office said in March that the group fell 1,027 short<\/a> of the number required because of signatures determined to be invalid or in need of information such as a date or an address.<\/p>\n LAFCO gave ACLJ from March 17 to April 1 to correct the invalid signatures, collect new ones or both to fill the gap. The group came up with 1,506.<\/p>\n On April 29, the association received a letter<\/a> saying it had collected a total of 6,772 valid signatures, putting it over the threshold.<\/p>\n Soon after, San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria issued a formal objection<\/a> that argued LAFCO overstepped in the process of verifying the signatures, and he disputed many of the signatures that ultimately were deemed valid.<\/p>\n LAFCO conducted a secondary review of the contested signatures on the supplemental petition and ultimately \u201coverruled the [registrar\u2019s] rejection on 239 signatures,\u201d the city said.<\/p>\n Of the 239 \u201cresurrected\u201d signatures, the city said it was \u201callowed to review 212.\u201d The city contended that of those, only 33 were valid, and it objected to the remaining 179.<\/p>\n The city also said it \u201cobjects to LAFCO\u2019s secondary review of the signatures [ACLJ] contested\u201d and believes the registrar of voters should be the authority on whether signatures are valid.<\/p>\n On May 2, LAFCO issued a formal response to San Diego\u2019s objection<\/a>, calling many of the city\u2019s claims \u201cinaccurate\u201d and saying it was moving forward with the cityhood application process.<\/p>\n Ten days later, the San Diego City Council decided on a 6-0 vote during a closed session to authorize legal action over LAFCO\u2019s handling of the petition signatures.<\/p>\n On June 19, the city filed suit<\/a> seeking to stop LAFCO and its executive officer, Keene Simonds, from proceeding.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n