Jeremy Coltharp v. Larry Herrera

dissenting:

I respectfully disagree and thus dissent. In my view, the district court committed reversible error by not granting Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction for three reasons: (1) Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) Plaintiffs demonstrated that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm; and (3) the balance of hardships and the consideration of the public interest favor Plaintiffs. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365 , 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008); see also Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1199 (9th Cir.2009).

First, the district court abused its discretion by misinterpreting Cal. Elec.Code § 9215(b) — i.e., it made “an erroneous review of the law.” See League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Connaughton, 752 F.3d 755, 759 (9th Cir.2014) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Beltran-Gutierrez, 19 F.3d 1287, 1289 (9th Cir.1994) (“A trial court abuses its discretion by erroneously interpreting the law.”). More specifically, the district court read § 9215(b) to preclude Plaintiffs’ initiative from being placed on the next “regular election” with no support in the case law or…

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs Jeremy Coltharp and Edith Frazier appeal the district court’s decision *335 denying their motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to compel Larry Herrera, the City Clerk of the City of Long Beach, to certify their ballot measure for the next regularly scheduled election. Plaintiffs argue that the district court’s interpretation of the California Elections Code was erroneous and that Herrera should have certified the measure as qualifying for the next regular election despite the fact that their initiative petition proposed a vote on the measure at a special election. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1), 1 and we affirm.

California Elections Code § 9214 appears to indicate that an elections official may not validate a petition containing “a request that the ordinance be submitted immediately to a vote of the people at a special election” unless it obtains valid signatures from at least 15% of the registered voters. Section 9215(b) further suggests that if a petition obtains support from 10% of the registered voters, the city council may set the initiative for the next regularly scheduled election “unless the ordinance petitioned…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 29 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEREMY COLTHARP, an individual, and No. 13-56589 EDITH FRAZIER, an individual, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-03263-ABC- Plaintiffs - Appellants, FFM

v.

MEMORANDUM*

LARRY HERRERA, in his official capacity as City Clerk for the City of Long Beach,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 3, 2014 Pasadena, California

Before: TROTT and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, District Judge.**

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

1 Plaintiffs Jeremy Coltharp and Edith Frazier appeal the district court’s

decision denying their motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to compel Larry

Herrera, the City Clerk of the City of Long Beach,…