Jauregui

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant, City of Palmdale, California, appeals from a September 30, 2013 preliminary injunction secured by plaintiffs, Juan Juaregui, Nigel Holly and V. Jesse Smith. The preliminary injunction, among other things, enjoins defendant from certifying the results of an at-large city council election which was ultimately held on November 5, 2013. Plaintiffs’ sole cause of action is for a violation of the California Voting Rights Act because of the use of an at-large system for electing city council members. (Elec.1 Code, §§ 14025-14032.) Defendant presents only two challenges to the September 30, 2013 preliminary injunction. First, defendant argues because it is a charter city, it cannot be subject to the California Voting Rights Act. Defendant relies upon California Constitution, article2 XI, section 5. Second, defendant contends the preliminary injunction violates statutory provisions which prohibit enjoining a public official from fulfilling a ministerial duty to act pursuant to a public statute. (Civ. Code, § 3423, subd. (d); Code Civ. Proc., § 526, subd. (b)(4).) We respectfully reject these contentions and affirm the preliminary injunction insofar as it enjoins…

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant, City of Palmdale, California, appeals from a September 30, 2013 preliminary injunction secured by plaintiffs, Juan Jauregui, Nigel Holly and V. Jesse Smith. The preliminary injunction, among other things, enjoins defendant from certifying the results of an at-large city council election which was ultimately held on November 5, 2013. Plaintiffs’ sole cause of action is for a violation of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 because of the use of an at-large system for electing city council members. (Elec. Code, 1 §§ 14025-14032.)

Defendant presents only two challenges to the September 30, 2013 preliminary injunction. First, defendant argues because it is a charter city, it cannot be subject to the California Voting Rights Act of 2001. Defendant relies upon California Constitution, article 2 XI, section 5. Second, defendant contends the preliminary injunction violates statutory provisions which prohibit enjoining a public official from fulfilling a ministerial duty to act pursuant to a public statute. (Civ. Code, § 3423, subd. (d); Code Civ. Proc., § 526, subd. (b)(4).) We respectfully reject these contentions and affirm the preliminary…

I concur.

Code of Civil Procedure section 526, subdivision (b) and Civil Code section 3423, subdivision (d) are not inapplicable under the theory that Elections Code section 14029 is a later-enacted and more specific injunctive relief provision. The provision in Elections Code section 14029 that “the court shall implement appropriate remedies . . .” is not more specific than the antiinjunction language of Code of Civil Procedure section 526, subdivision (b) and Civil Code section 3423, subdivision (d). Indeed, injunctive relief in contravention of those statutes would not be “appropriate.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 526, subdivision (b) and Civil Code section 3423, subdivision (d) preclude an injunction, “To prevent the execution of a public statute, by officers of the law, for the public benefit.” (Civ. Code § 3423, subd. (d).) It is not clear if this means the execution of the statute for the public benefit or the statute itself is for the public benefit. The statute for the certification of the election, Elections Code sections 10262, subdivision (b) and 10263, are for the public benefit. The execution of the statutes may not be for the public benefit because the…