A civil case against the registrar of voters contesting last November’s election for a Chula Vista City Council seat has been assigned a new judge.
Attorney Brian Hildreth, who represents Councilman John McCann, filed a peremptory challenge on Feb. 2 requesting a new judge for the case.
This is the second time a new judge has been requested.
Attorney John Moot in January also had asked for a new judge.
“We didn’t feel it was the right judge for the case,” Moot said about his request last month.
He said he felt the original judge didn’t have the background and experience to handle this case.
Moot represents Chula Vista resident Aurora Clark, the person who filed the lawsuit on Jan. 2.
Moot said that McCann’s request for a new attorney is simply a stall tactic.
“They are just trying to delay the case,” he said. “They knew who this judge was weeks ago.”
Moot said McCann has been delaying the case since the lawsuit was filed.
Moot said first Hildreth refused service for McCann, then McCann avoided service.
Moot also said McCann and his attorney failed to show up for a hearing after McCann was served, which he said delayed the case even longer.
And now, Moot said McCann is requesting a new judge.
Hildreth said he couldn’t accept service for McCann because he said at the time he wasn’t retained by McCann to receive service.
Hildreth said neither he nor his client are stalling.
“Once John Moot properly served my client we moved expeditiously with all due speed to respond to Moot’s complaint,” Hildreth said.
Hildreth also said that a request for a new judge is normal in cases like this, and also said Moot requested a new judge too.
McCann said Moot is the one delaying the court process.
“Lobbyist for Inland Industries, (John) Moot and (Steve) Padilla took 30 days to find a political operative to put the person’s name on the lawsuit (Aurora Clark), they took nine days to strike and get a new judge, they took almost four weeks to serve me, even though I have been at every public council meeting,” McCann said.
“Any delay was caused by Moot and Padilla and they are now once again deliberately distorting the truth for their personal benefit.”
The lawsuit filed by Moot challenges 15 uncounted ballots in last November’s election.
Registrar of Voters Michael Vu did not count the ballots in questions for several reasons, including that voters had used a P.O. Box as their address to vote, signatures on ballots did not match with signatures from years past, or some voters voted twice — once as a mail-in ballot and another at the polls.
The lawsuit is against Vu and the Registrar of Voters Office, but McCann is attached to the lawsuit because California law states that the certified winner of an election must also be named.
Hildreth said he wanted every uncounted ballot to be counted, not just the 16 Moot is questioning.
“It is very telling that Steve Padilla’s friend, John Moot, has cherry-picked ballots while leaving other similar ballots unchallenged,” he said. “And that should speak volumes about the motives behind this lawsuit.”
Moot said McCann had his chance to make sure every ballot was counted.
“If they were raising the issue, they should have filed a petition for an election contest just like we did,” Moot said.
McCann said the completion of a recount would have ensured that every vote was counted.
“If they wanted every vote counted, they would have not stopped the recount when my lead was increasing. Why don’t they ask the judge to include the additional votes the registrar of voters found in favor of McCann?” he said.
“Instead they are only cherry-picking 16 votes out of the 335 votes invalidated because they did research and know the votes will be for my opponent.”
Judge Eddie Sturgen is now scheduled to preside over the case, though a hearing date has not been set.
