Verjil

Mission Springs Water District v. Verjil

Good Law
160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 524·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 625·218 Cal. App. 4th 892·2013 WL 4009261
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 7, 2013E055176California9,971 words

Opinion

Opinion

Richli, J.

Mission Springs Water District (the District) increased its water and sewer rates. Initiatives to roll back the increases gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Rather than hold an election on the initiatives, however, the District filed this action against the proponents of the initiatives (the Proponents) for a declaration that the initiatives are invalid.

The Proponents filed a “SLAPP motion”—i.e., a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (SLAPP Act). For this motion to be granted, the Proponents had to show that the action arose out of activity protected under the constitutional right of petition or free speech, and the District had to fail to show a probability of prevailing on its claims. The trial court denied the motion. It ruled that, under our decision in City of Riverside v. Stansbury (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1582 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 862 ] (Stansbury), a declaratory relief action concerning the validity of an initiative does not arise out of protected activity by the initiative’s proponents.

The Proponents ask us to reconsider Stansbury , asserting that it was poorly reasoned. We conclude that Stansbury was sound…

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.