The city of Chula Vista’s request to have an open government lawsuit thrown out of court was denied last week.
San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal sided with Chula Vista resident Chris Shilling and San Diegans for Open Government when she denied the city’s request, saying that it was not the appropriate vehicle to challenge the complaint.
An attorney for the city did not argue the judge’s ruling on the request but asked her to strike part of the complaint that alleges the city had been in violation of the Brown Act for more than a decade in appointing city officials to vacant council seats.
Charles Bird, outside counsel for the city of Chula Vista, asked the judge to strike several portions of the lawsuit because he said Chula Vista has adopted a new process for council appointments which, Bird said, removed any controversies from the old process.
Bird said the issue of removing appointed Councilman Steve Miesen from office falls within the jurisdiction of the state attorney general and not the court.
Coast Law Group, which represents Shilling, received an opinion from the attorney general that said the court could remove Miesen.
Bacal reaffirmed the attorney general’s decision and said a quo warranto was not needed.
“The attorney general of California agreed we were right and the judge was very fair in her ruling,” Shilling said.
“Unfortunately, the city will continue to spend huge amounts of money to delay a court date.”
Bird also said the statue that plaintiffs are trying to use in challenging the old process requires the filing of a cease and desist letter, an action that was never filed.
Shilling said he is happy to move forward with his lawsuit and called Bird’s argument for a motion to strike a delay tactic.
“I didn’t have much doubt since this is just the city’s way of trying to avoid accountability by searching for legal technicalities,” he said.
Bacal did not rule on the motion to strike and instead gave Shilling’s team of lawyers 30 days to file a second amended complaint that includes the specific citation to the portion of the Brown Act that’s in question.
Livia Borak, who represents Shilling, said she will file a seconded amended complaint.
Bart Miesfeld, head litigator for the city of Chula Vista, did not return messages seeking comment for this story.
Shilling and SanDOG filed their lawsuit last February contending that council members and the mayor violated the Ralph M. Brown Act — the state’s opening meetings law — in appointing Miesen to a vacant council seat on Jan.23.
The seat Miesen was appointed to was left vacant by then Councilwoman Mary Casillas Salas, who was elected mayor last November.
In his lawsuit, Shilling contends that council members and the mayor held a serial meeting with the city clerk by emailing their list of finalists to the city clerk in private.
Shilling also claims that the city has broken the law for about a decade by using the old process.
A case management hearing is set for Jan. 29.
Borak said she expects the city to continue to delay the case.
“Overall I think the judge sided with us and we expect to move forward with our lawsuit,” she said.
“And we expect the city to keep filing challenges, not because they have any merit but because they want to delay this as long as possible.”
