The city of Chula Vista’s second attempt to have a lawsuit challenging the appointment of Councilman Steve Miesen dismissed was denied Monday by a California appeals court.
San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal last November denied the city’s request to throw out a lawsuit that questioned the legality of the process used to appoint Councilman Steve Miesen to the five-member City Council.
Miesen filled the council seat left by then Councilwoman Mary Casillas Salas who was elected as the city’s 40th mayor in last November’s election.
Bacal also said a quo warranto from the Attorney General’s Office was not needed to remove Miesen from office. The city had argued that a judge couldn’t rule if a quo warranto was needed because that jurisdiction belonged to the attorney general.
A three-judge panel from the Fourth District Court of Appeals agreed with Bacal’s decision and ruled not to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Chula Vista resident Chris Shilling and San Diegans for Open Government. They also reinforced that a quo warranto was not needed to remove Miesen from the City Council.
City legal staff would not comment for this story and their outside counsel, Charles Bird, did not return messages seeking comment for this story.
Bird, however, argued in court documents that if the appeals court allowed the lawsuit to move forward, it would cause irreparable harm to both the city of Chula Vista and Miesen.
Bird said in a court filing that the city would suffer irreparable harm because it would have to use “unrecoverable public funds” to defend the case.
Attorney Marco Gonzalez, who is representing Shilling, said it was no surprise that the appeals court ruled in his favor and that it’s the city that is choosing to use public money to fight the case.
“This is what we expected to happen and it kind of supports our theory that the city’s attorneys are wasting taxpayer money with their attempts to get this thrown out when the city really should be settling it.”
Bird argued in court documents that the lawsuit, if not dismissed, would hurt Miesen’s image in the community.
“He is not a politician and he has never held elective office before. He is not running to succeed himself or for any other office in the 2016 elections. He holds the office solely to perform a public service,” Bird wrote.
If the case goes forward without jurisdiction, he could be found (erroneously) to be usurping public office on a ground which he has no fault, unfairly damaging his reputation in the community.”
Shilling said the city’s appeal was just another delay tactic
“I wish something could be done about meritless legal maneuvers simply designed to delay a trial, but that is how our legal system works if you have the money,” he said. “City leaders will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on losing motions to delay our day in court. It is sad for the community which could use that money for better purposes but these are the choices that city leaders are making.”
A Nov. 20, 2015, records request shows the city has spent nearly $94,000 defending the case. A second records request seeking an updated cost was submitted this week.
The lawsuit filed in February 2015 alleges that the Chula Vista City Council violated the Ralph M. Brown Act — the state’s opening meetings law — by hosting serial meetings and voting in secret for finalists during the appointment.
Chula Vista officials have denied violating that Brown Act, stating throughout the case that the city has used the same process for filling vacancies on the City Council and city commissions for at least a decade.
A case management hearing is set for Jan. 29.
