Widders

Widders v. Furchtenicht

Good Law
167 Cal. App. 4th 769·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1614·84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 428
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 20, 2008B196583California6,304 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perren, J.

Jeff B. Furchtenicht, an attorney who resides in Ojai, submits two ballot initiative measures that direct the city council to exercise its “informed judgment” to craft and adopt laws relating to chain stores and affordable housing. Monte L. Widders, Ojai’s City Attorney, informs Furchtenicht that the measures are an improper exercise of the initiative power conferred by the California Constitution because they do not propose actual legislation. After Furchtenicht declines to withdraw the measures, Widders seeks a judicial declaration relieving him of his statutory duty to prepare ballot titles and summaries. The trial court sustains Furchtenicht’s demurrer on the ground that the action was not filed within the 15-day period for Widders’s compliance with the applicable law, yet also finds that Widders had no duty to comply with that law.

We conclude that the action was timely filed. While we recognize the strong public policy in favor of putting initiative measures before the electorate, that policy is not advanced where, as here, the proposed measures are plainly unconstitutional on their face. We further conclude that the action does not qualify as a SLAPP suit because…

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.