Coalition challenge in California

2025(Meridian, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 701, fn. 15; Paterno, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 106 .) East County or keeping it with the Chaldeans” and added “they’re all legitimate factors that we have to weigh and consider.” 12 In support of this assertion, the Coalition cites a different section of its opening brief in which it quotes statements made during “the discussion of Rancho San Diego” that it contends show certain other commissioners voted for the scenario 3b map amendment “because of the African[ ]American community” or “BIPOC, non-White population” of Rancho San Diego. 38 Instead, the

2025(Meridian, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 701, fn. 15; Paterno, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 106 .) East County or keeping it with the Chaldeans” and added “they’re all legitimate factors that we have to weigh and consider.” 12 In support of this assertion, the Coalition cites a different section of its opening brief in which it quotes statements made during “the discussion of Rancho San Diego” that it contends show certain other commissioners voted for the scenario 3b map amendment “because of the African[ ]American community” or “BIPOC, non-White population” of Rancho San Diego. 38 Instead, the

2025(Meridian, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 701, fn. 15; Paterno, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 106 .) East County or keeping it with the Chaldeans” and added “they’re all legitimate factors that we have to weigh and consider.” 12 In support of this assertion, the Coalition cites a different section of its opening brief in which it quotes statements made during “the discussion of Rancho San Diego” that it contends show certain other commissioners voted for the scenario 3b map amendment “because of the African[ ]American community” or “BIPOC, non-White population” of Rancho San Diego. 38 Instead, the

2025This is consistent with, rather than violative of, Bethune-Hill, including its 35 instructions that to properly analyze a racial gerrymandering claim, a court must focus on the redistricting body’s “actual considerations” ( Bethune-Hill, supra, 580 U.S. at pp. 189-190) and determine whether “ ‘race for its own sake . . . was the legislature’s dominant and controlling rationale’ ” (id. at p. 188).10 The Coalition’s third argument is directed at yet another of the trial court’s reasons for finding it failed to meet its burden to prove racial predominance.

2025“It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766 ; accord, Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 72, 89 .) As we have explained, the court gave two independent reasons for rejecting the Coalition’s claim.

2024(Robinson, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 391 ; see City of Oakland v. Oakland Police & Fire Retirement System (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 688, 697-698 [“ ‘each element must be satisfied to justify a fee award’ ”].) DISPOSITION The order denying the Coalition’s motion for attorney’s fees is affirmed.

2016(Lona v. Citybank, N.A. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 89, 100 ; Hamburg v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 497, 503 .) In its motion, City asserted that Coalition's challenge was to the validity of the original May 2, 2013 permit.

2016(Lona v. Citybank, N.A. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 89, 100 ; Hamburg v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 497, 503 .) In its motion, City asserted that Coalition's challenge was to the validity of the original May 2, 2013 permit.

2010(Costa Serena, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 1196 .) B.

2010The appellate court found no support for the trial court’s conclusion that the amendments were void ab initio, observing that “[t]he trial court apparently misapprehended the limited circumstances in which a court may conclude that an instrument is a complete nullity, as opposed to being voidable pursuant to a timely challenge by a party, due to a deficiency in the instrument’s creation.” (Costa Serena, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 1191 .) The Court of Appeal explained that a challenge to an amendment on the ground that it was enacted in a manner that failed to conform to the requirements of t

2009The court interpreted paragraph 28 in the original DoR’s as requiring “that the acknowledged signatures [of the owners of at least 75 percent of the ‘units located on the real property’ 7 ] be attached to the document itself.” Because “it [was] undisputed that no such signatures [were] attached [to the 1986, 1987, or 1999 Amendments], the instruments are void.” The court cited City of Los Angeles v. Morgan (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 726 [ 234 P.2d 319 ] (Morgan) and Taormina Theosophical Community, Inc. v. Silver (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 964 [ 190 Cal.Rptr. 38 ] (Taormina) in reaching this conclusion.

2009The court interpreted paragraph 28 in the original DoR’s as requiring “that the acknowledged signatures [of the owners of at least 75 percent of the ‘units located on the real property’ 7 ] be attached to the document itself.” Because “it [was] undisputed that no such signatures [were] attached [to the 1986, 1987, or 1999 Amendments], the instruments are void.” The court cited City of Los Angeles v. Morgan (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 726 [ 234 P.2d 319 ] (Morgan) and Taormina Theosophical Community, Inc. v. Silver (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 964 [ 190 Cal.Rptr. 38 ] (Taormina) in reaching this conclusion.

2009The court interpreted paragraph 28 in the original DoR’s as requiring “that the acknowledged signatures [of the owners of at least 75 percent of the ‘units located on the real property’ 7 ] be attached to the document itself.” Because “it [was] undisputed that no such signatures [were] attached [to the 1986, 1987, or 1999 Amendments], the instruments are void.” The court cited City of Los Angeles v. Morgan (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 726 [ 234 P.2d 319 ] (Morgan) and Taormina Theosophical Community, Inc. v. Silver (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 964 [ 190 Cal.Rptr. 38 ] (Taormina) in reaching this conclusion.

2009The court interpreted paragraph 28 in the original DoR’s as requiring “that the acknowledged signatures [of the owners of at least 75 percent of the ‘units located on the real property’ 7 ] be attached to the document itself.” Because “it [was] undisputed that no such signatures [were] attached [to the 1986, 1987, or 1999 Amendments], the instruments are void.” The court cited City of Los Angeles v. Morgan (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 726 [ 234 P.2d 319 ] (Morgan) and Taormina Theosophical Community, Inc. v. Silver (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 964 [ 190 Cal.Rptr. 38 ] (Taormina) in reaching this conclusion.

1995(See also Jackson v. Department of Public Welfare of State of Fla., supra, 317 F. Supp. at pp. 1159-1161 [rejecting contention that cost-of-living adjustment of need standard that does not accurately reflect living costs violates federal law].) [17] Imposition of this requirement rebuts the Coalition's assertion that approval of California's reevaluation would render section 602(h) a nullity.