C.O.M.E.T.

C.O.M.E.T. v. City of Redlands CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 25, 2024G063087California4,944 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

C.O.M.E.T.’s initial complaint alleged that it “is a 501(c)(3) organization in the unincorporated, rural territory of Mentone,” which is an area abutting the east side of Redlands; it purports to represent all residents and property owners in Mentone. C.O.M.E.T. stated there are too many residents of Mentone to list individually and thus it requested certification of 2 this case as a class action. The complaint alleged that in the 1970’s, “LAFCO placed Mentone in Redlands’ ‘sphere of influence,”’ and that “[o]ver the years, Redlands purchased all of the water companies located in Mentone.” Mentone is therefore dependent on Redlands for all of its potable water. Historically, Redlands has provided water service to properties outside its city limits, including Mentone. However, in 1997, Redlands’s voters passed Measure U, which provided that as a general rule, Redlands would not provide utility services to

2 Our record contains no evidence that C.O.M.E.T. ever pursued class action certification; its opening brief on appeal makes no argument related to such certification.

3 areas outside its city limits until those areas were annexed to the city. But Redlands would allegedly…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.