Pope

Pope v. Superior Court

Good Law
136 Cal. App. 4th 871·39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 183
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 8, 2006B188885California3,149 words

Opinion

Opinion

Strumwasser & Woocher LLP, Fredric D. Woocher, Michael J. Strumwasser, Santa Monica, and Beverly Grossman Palmer for Real Parties in Interest.

We hold in this case that a city term limit law referring to an election to a four-year term does not mean appointment or election to a less than four-year term. Defendants, Malibu City Clerk Lisa Pope and the City of Malibu (the city), seek a writ of mandate directing the respondent court to vacate a February 3, 2006 judgment and writ of mandate. The February 3, 2006 judgment and writ of mandate ordered Ms. Pope and the city to not include Councilmember Sharon Barovsky's name on a ballot for reelection to the city council. Because the city's term limit law unambiguously allows Ms. Barovsky to run for reelection to the city council, we grant the petition and direct the respondent court to vacate its judgment and writ of mandate.

Malibu Ordinance No. 200 added former Chapter 10.5, section 2.10.050 to the Malibu Municipal Code. [1] Former section 2.10.050 is now found in Chapter 2.08, section 2.08.040 of the Malibu Municipal Code. Malibu Municipal Code section 2.08.040 states: "No person shall be elected as a member of the city…

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.