On Thursday, January 24, COMET timely filed its Appellant’s Reply Brief (“ARB”) with the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three (Santa Ana), responding to Redlands’ Opposition Brief filed two months before. Redlands’ brief had argued the five issues from its Appellant’s Opening Brief plus several that COMET did not appeal but which Redlands repetitively argued against, and which COMET had to respond to, leading to a lengthy ARB.
The five issues COMET did appeal were that it had filed a “reverse validation” brief in March 2019 and April 2021, challenging recent annexations and “pre-“annexations, whose “Agreements” COMET attached to the Complaints; however, the trial court repeatedly adopted Redlands’ arguments and held that COMET had failed to file such a case at all and even that it did not possess any excuse for not doing so. The reverse validation actions were challenges to Redlands’ demand for annexation or “pre”-annexation to its city limits before it would provide new water and sewer services to Mentone developments. [Ed.’s note: Redlands makes the same demand of San Timoteo Canyon].
COMET had also appealed the dismissal of its causes of action (divisions of the Complaint) for Civil Extortion, Declaratory Relief and Fraud; those three dismissals were also said to be based on the “lack” of a reverse validation action.
“Redlands’ excuse for the annexation demand is its own 1997 ordinance, despite Supreme Court case law that says the opposite and was enacted long before 1997,” said attorney Joyce Caraway. “Additionally, if the property to be developed is not ‘contiguous,’ or next door, to Redlands’ city limits, it has invented the fictitious ‘pre’-annexation, meaning that the owner will not fight annexation when Redlands is next door. That fictitious idea was prohibited by the legislated Code, which was upheld by the Supreme Court years ago,” she added.
The two other issues were whether Redlands is immune from suit, as Redlands claims; and whether COMET has the right to sue on behalf of all but five Mentone households, as COMET claims. Those five households opted out in response to a card that COMET sent out in 2022 to all 3,202 addresses in Mentone’s zip code of 92359. Some residents also voiced their approval of the lawsuit by email or phone call.
The attorneys for both sides waived oral argument before the court. “All that remains now is for us to wait until the three-justice court wades through all of Redlands’ false arguments and our truthful arguments and evidence. It will then issue its written decision, either agreeing with us or with Redlands; an interesting event was that the case was sent to Santa Ana because that court is not as busy as the one in Riverside and thus we may receive the decision sooner than if it were decided in Riverside,” concluded attorney Caraway.
Anyone wishing to read any of the three actual documents may obtain electronic copies by emailing attorneyjoycecaraway@aol.com.MM