Chula Vista resident Chris Shilling and San Diegans for Open Government filed an application to sue in Quo Warranto against appointed councilman Steve Miesen.
The application asks the state’s Attorney General for permission to sue Miesen in the name of the people so that he would be removed from office, said Shilling’s attorney Livia Borak with Coast Law Group.
If granted, the Coast Law Group can sue Miesen on behalf of the state of California.
Last January, Shilling filed a lawsuit against the city of Chula Vista for alleged Ralph M. Brown Act violations in the appointment of Miesen.
His main argument is that the city council held votes in secret when voting for candidates to move forward in the interview round.
“There’s not really any distinction between our lawsuit and what we would be seeking in the Quo Warranto proceeding,” Borak said. “Technically, our lawsuit is still based on the Brown Act violation.
The Ralph M. Brown Act is the state’s opening meeting laws.
Shilling said he filed the application for Quo Warranto in response to the city’s Demurrer, which he said suggested that the Quo Warranto is the only remedy for the case and for the removal of Miesen from office.
Bart Miesfield, the head litigator for the city of Chula Vista, said Miesen and the city council have been served with the Quo Warranto.
Miesfield declined to comment for this story because of “pending litigation.”
Outside counsel Charles Bird did ask the Attorney General to deny the Quo Warranto.
“The Attorney General should not grant movants’ application because no public purpose would be served by allowing removal litigation to proceed,” Bird wrote in his opposition.
Miesen said he wasn’t aware that the Quo Warranto had been filed against him but called it a waste of time.
“In my humble opinion, this is still a waste of effort and money because there isn’t anything to be found,” he said.
Shilling said the city saying that a Quo Warranto is the only remedy for the lawsuit is not correct because Miesen does not lawfully hold office because the appointment should be null and.
“In our opinion, it’s not a removal from office, he is not legally in office,” Shilling said.
“We are saying Miesen is not legally a councilman, we are not trying to remove him. He should not be there, he wasn’t legally appointed so he doesn’t have a right to that seat.”
The Attorney General is expected to hand down its decision in the next few weeks.
