Case: Eilenberg v. City of Colton

8:20-cv-00767 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: April 20, 2020

Closed Date: April 8, 2021

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case about a constitutional right to gather signatures to qualify a city ballot initiative during COVID-19 pandemic state of emergency. On April 20, 2020, the manager of a ballot initiative to allow food trucks to operate in the City of Colton, CA (which was to have appeared on the November 2020 city general election ballots) sued the city in the Central District of Californdia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The manager proceeded pro se. At the time, California was under a stay-at-home order…

This is a case about a constitutional right to gather signatures to qualify a city ballot initiative during COVID-19 pandemic state of emergency. On April 20, 2020, the manager of a ballot initiative to allow food trucks to operate in the City of Colton, CA (which was to have appeared on the November 2020 city general election ballots) sued the city in the Central District of Californdia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The manager proceeded pro se. At the time, California was under a stay-at-home order to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The ballot initiative manager alleged that the city's failure to issue an exception to the stay-at-home order for signature-gatherers violated his federal and state constitutional rights. The complaint did not specify which constitutional rights it alleged were violated. The original complaint sought damages and injunctive relief under § 1983 and a writ of mandate.

On April 29, 2020, the ballot initiative manager filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order that would have required the city to either allow signature gatherers to operate within its limits or place the food truck ballot initiative on the ballot. The city answered the next day, on April 30, 2020. On May 14, 2020, District Judge Fernando M. Olguin denied the application for a TRO. The court found the manager lacked standing because (1) he did not suffer a particularized injury because he was an agent of the ballot initiative proponent and (2) his alleged injury was not fairly traceable to defendant's conduct, since it was only the state, not the city, who had authority to classify signature gatherers as essential workers. With respect to the TRO itself, the court found that the manager was unlikely to succeed on the merits because the stay-at-home order was sufficiently related to the public health crisis. Additionally, the court found the manager had not suffered an irreparable injury because he lacked standing, did not show he would have gathered the required number of signatures but-for the stay-at-home order, and was not diligent in filing the request for a TRO. The balance of hardships tipped in the city's favor, according to the court, because the city's hardships were human suffering due to COVID-19 exposure vs. the manager's economic hardships. Finally, the court found that the public interest weighed against granting a TRO because collecting the signatures did not serve the public interest, but a stay-at-home order protected the public from COVID-19. 2020 WL 6555042. 

On June 4, 2020, the ballot initiative manager amended his complaint to add the County of San Bernadino and State of California as defendants. The amended complaint included an allegation that the state constitution "guaranteed" the initiative process, but did not further specify which federal constitutional rights the defendants had allegedly violated. The manager continued to proceed pro se.

The same day, the manager moved for a preliminary injunction, which sought the same relief as the TRO (an order requiring the city to either allow signature gatherers to operate within its limits or place the food truck ballot initiative on the ballot) or any other relief the court deemed proper. The city and state filed their oppositions to the application for preliminary injunction on June 18, 2020, and the manager replied on June 30. The city filed its answer to the amended complaint on June 19. 

Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick denied the plaintiff's application for the preliminary injunction on July 9, 2020. The court first found that the manager did not have standing for the same reasons he did not in the application for the TRO. It then found that the manager was unlikely to succeed on the merits of the claim. The court, finding that the manager's constitutional claims sounded in the First Amendment, applied a test from Angle v. Miller, 673 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2012). The court found that the manger was not sufficiently "reasonably diligent" in gathering signatures before the stay-at-home order took effect to have demonstrated a severe burden to their rights that would have overridden the defendants' interests in protecting public health. The court noted that the State of California had sovereign immunity from the suit. Finally, the court explained that, for the same reasons as the order denying the TRO, the manager had not demonstrated irreparable injury or that the balance of the equities/public interest favored him. 2020 WL 5802377. On July 27, 2020, the District Judge adopted Judge McCormick's findings.

The State of California filed a motion to dismiss on July 15, 2020 for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, on September 21, Judge McCormick granted to motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds. 2020 WL 6555044. The District Judge adopted Judge McCormick's findings on October 13, 2020, dismissing the claims against the state with prejudice. 

On November 24, 2020, Judge McCormick dismissed the manager's claims against the County of San Bernadino sua sponte because the county had not been served with the First Amended Complaint. The District Judge adopted the findings on February 12, 2021, dismissing the claims against the county with prejudice. 

Finally, on January 20, 2021, the City of Colton filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On March 12, 2021, Judge McCormick dismissed the manager's claims against the City of Colton because the November 2020 election's passing made the claims moot, and since the stay-at-home order had expired, the claims did not fall within the capable of repetition yet evading review exception to mootness. 2021 WL 1521584. 

The District Judge accepted Judge McCormick's recommendations on April 8, 2021, dismissing the case with prejudice. The case is closed. 

Summary Authors

John Juenemann (1/30/2022)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17083440/parties/ben-eilenberg-v-the-city-of-colton/


Judge(s)

McCormick, Douglas F (California)

Olguin, Fernando Manzano (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Ask, Ron (California)

Eilenberg, Ben (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Boutin, Gabrielle Downey (California)

Dunn, Jeffrey V. (California)

Judge(s)

McCormick, Douglas F (California)

Olguin, Fernando Manzano (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Ask, Ron (California)

Eilenberg, Ben (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Boutin, Gabrielle Downey (California)

Dunn, Jeffrey V. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

Nov. 24, 2020 Docket
1

Complaint

April 20, 2020 Complaint
16

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order

2020 WL 6555042

May 14, 2020 Order/Opinion
18

First Amended Complaint

June 4, 2020 Complaint
36

Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

2020 WL 5802377

July 9, 2020 Magistrate Report/Recommendation
40

Order Accepting Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

2020 WL 5802379

July 29, 2020 Order/Opinion
45

Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

2020 WL 6555044

Sept. 21, 2020 Magistrate Report/Recommendation
47

Order Accepting Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

2020 WL 6554639

Oct. 13, 2020 Order/Opinion
50

Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

Nov. 24, 2020 Magistrate Report/Recommendation
51

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Jan. 21, 2021 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Resources

Title Description External URL

Eilenberg v. City of Colton

Healthy Elections Project

Plaintiff is managing the effort to get an initiative (allowing food trucks in the City of Colton, CA) on the City's 11/20 ballot. The California Elections Code requires local initiative proponents t… Nov. 5, 2020 https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=165

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17083440/ben-eilenberg-v-the-city-of-colton/

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

COMPLAINT Receipt No: CCACDC-26146581 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Benjamin Eilenberg. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F) (Attorney Ben A Eilenberg added to party Benjamin Eilenberg(pty:pla))(Eilenberg, Ben) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

April 20, 2020 Clearinghouse
2

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Benjamin Eilenberg. (Eilenberg, Ben) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

April 20, 2020 PACER
3

Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 filed by Plaintiff Benjamin Eilenberg. (Eilenberg, Ben) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

April 20, 2020 PACER
4

Certificate of Interested Parties re: Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 (Eilenberg, Ben) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

April 20, 2020 PACER
5

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Fernando M. Olguin and Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. (esa) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

April 20, 2020 PACER
6

NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (esa) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

April 20, 2020 PACER
7

NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening. The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s): A temporary restraining order (TRO) flag was indicated, but no TRO document was filed.. (esa) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

April 20, 2020 PACER
8

21 DAY Summons issued re Complaint 1 as to defendant The City of Colton. (esa) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

April 20, 2020 PACER
9

NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Re: Notice of Assignment to United States Judges 5 . The case should be referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick for preliminary matters and all further hearings as may be appropriate or necessary. Please note the change in the case number which should now read 8:20-cv-00767 FMO (DFM). (esa) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

April 20, 2020 PACER
10

First EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Allowing Initiative Petition Signature Gathering filed by Plaintiff Ben Eilenberg. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Proposed Order) (Attorney Ben A Eilenberg added to party Ben Eilenberg(pty:pla)) (Eilenberg, Ben) (Entered: 04/29/2020)

April 29, 2020 PACER
11

SERVICE UNDER FRCP 5(b)(2)(D) Executed by Plaintiff Ben Eilenberg, upon Defendant The City of Colton served on 4/29/2020, answer due 5/20/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the Clerks Office in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As to Summons, Complaint, and Ex Parte (Eilenberg, Ben) (Entered: 04/29/2020)

April 29, 2020 PACER
12

OPPOSITION in opposition to re: First EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Allowing Initiative Petition Signature Gathering 10 filed by Defendant The City of Colton. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Daniel L. Richards)(Attorney Jeffrey V Dunn added to party The City of Colton(pty:dft))(Dunn, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/30/2020)

April 30, 2020 PACER
13

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE In Support of Opposition to Ex Parte filed by Defendant The City of Colton. (Dunn, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/30/2020)

April 30, 2020 PACER
14

CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Specially Appearing Defendant The City of Colton, identifying N/A. (Dunn, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/30/2020)

April 30, 2020 PACER
15

NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendant The City of Colton. correcting Objection/Opposition (Motion related), 12 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Opposition)(Dunn, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/30/2020)

April 30, 2020 PACER
16

Order Denying Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order 10 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Plaintiff seeks a disfavored remedy during an unprecedented public health crisis. But he has not established that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims, that he will suffer irreparable injury without a TRO, or that the balance of hardships tips in his favor. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. (es) (Entered: 05/14/2020)

May 14, 2020 Clearinghouse
17

STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to The City of Colton answer now due 6/19/2020, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 filed by defendant The City of Colton.(Dunn, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

May 15, 2020 PACER
18

First AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants Does, The City of Colton, The State of California, The County of San Bernardino amending Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1, filed by Plaintiff Ben Eilenberg (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Eilenberg, Ben) (Entered: 06/04/2020)

June 4, 2020 Clearinghouse
19

First APPLICATION for Preliminary Injunction re Allowing signature gatherers or alternative relief . Motion filed by Plaintiff Ben Eilenberg. Application set for hearing on 7/9/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H) (Eilenberg, Ben) (Entered: 06/04/2020)

June 4, 2020 PACER
20

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to First APPLICATION for Preliminary Injunction re Allowing signature gatherers or alternative relief . Motion 19 filed by Defendant The State of California. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration)(Attorney Gabrielle D Boutin added to party The State of California(pty:dft))(Boutin, Gabrielle) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

June 18, 2020 PACER
21

OPPOSITION in opposition to re: First APPLICATION for Preliminary Injunction re Allowing signature gatherers or alternative relief . Motion 19 filed by Defendant The City of Colton. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Daniel L. Richards In Support of Opposition)(Dunn, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

June 18, 2020 PACER
22

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE In Support of Opposition to Plaintiff's Application for Preliminary Injunction filed by Defendant The City of Colton. (Dunn, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

June 18, 2020 PACER
23

ANSWER to Amended Complaint/Petition, 18 with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendant The City of Colton.(Dunn, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/19/2020)

June 19, 2020 PACER
25

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO JOIN AS AN ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFF UNDER FRCP 19 and 20; APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Motion set for hearing on 7/9/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Douglas F. McCormick. (es) (Entered: 06/25/2020)

June 22, 2020 PACER
26

CERTIFICATE AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Movant Wylmina Hettinga (es) Modified on 6/25/2020 (es). (Entered: 06/25/2020)

June 22, 2020 PACER
27

APPLICATION for Pro Se Litigant to electronically file documents in a specific case filed by Movant Wylmina Hettinga. (es) Modified on 6/25/2020 (es). (Entered: 06/25/2020)

June 22, 2020 PACER
24

STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response to First Amended Complaint filed by Defendant The State of California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Boutin, Gabrielle) (Entered: 06/25/2020)

June 25, 2020 PACER
28

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order Denying Motion for Leave to Join as an Additional Plaintiff under FRCP 19 and 20 (Dkt. 25) by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick: *See document for details.* (es) (Entered: 06/25/2020)

June 25, 2020 PACER
29

Notice of Withdrawal as Counsel - Joseph Byrne (Dunn, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/26/2020)

June 26, 2020 RECAP
30

Notice of Withdrawal of Miscellaneous Document 29 filed by defendant The City of Colton. (Dunn, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/26/2020)

June 26, 2020 PACER
31

REPLY support First APPLICATION for Preliminary Injunction re Allowing signature gatherers or alternative relief . Motion 19 filed by Plaintiff Ask A Ronald. (Attorney Ronald William Ask added to party Ask A Ronald(pty:pla))(Ask, Ronald) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

June 30, 2020 PACER
32

MINUTE ORDER (In Chambers) Order Re First Application for Preliminary Injunction 19 by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick: This case has been assigned to this Court for all preliminary matters. See Dkt. 9. Plaintiff has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. See Dkt. 19. The Court has reviewed the motion papers, oppositions, and reply. The Court determines that oral argument will not be necessary. See Local Rule 7-15. The hearing noticed for July 9, 2020, is accordingly VACATED. The matter is under submission. Under 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(l)(B), the Court will prepare Proposed Findings and Recommendation for the District Judge. (es) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

July 1, 2020 PACER
33

ORDER ADOPTING STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 24, by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. Defendant's time to respond to the First Amended Complaint is extended by 15 days and shall now be due on July 15, 2020. (es) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

July 1, 2020 PACER
34

Defendant State of California's Objections to Plaintiff's Evidence Filed with Reply Brief in Support of Application for Preliminary Injunction Objection re: First APPLICATION for Preliminary Injunction re Allowing signature gatherers or alternative relief . Motion 19 and Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Application for Preliminary Injunction 31 filed by Defendant The State of California. (Boutin, Gabrielle) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

July 6, 2020 PACER
35

NOTICE OF FILING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. Objections to R&R due by 7/29/2020. (nbo) (Entered: 07/09/2020)

July 9, 2020 PACER
36

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION issued by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. Re First APPLICATION for Preliminary Injunction re Allowing signature gatherers or alternative relief 19 . Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs Application for a Preliminary Injunction be DENIED. Under 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1), Plaintiff may file and serve any written objections within fourteen days of service of this Report and Recommendation. (nbo) (Entered: 07/09/2020)

July 9, 2020 Clearinghouse
37

AMENDED NOTICE OF FILING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. Objections to R&R due by 7/23/2020. (nbo) (Entered: 07/09/2020)

July 9, 2020 PACER
38

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction the First Amended Complaint filed by Defendant The State of California. Motion set for hearing on 8/13/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Request for Judicial Notice) (Boutin, Gabrielle) (Entered: 07/15/2020)

July 15, 2020 PACER
39

Opposition In Opposition re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction the First Amended Complaint 38 filed by Plaintiffs Ben Eilenberg, Ask A Ronald. (Attorney Ronald William Ask added to party Ben Eilenberg(pty:pla))(Ask, Ronald) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

July 27, 2020 PACER
40

Order Accepting Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's First Application for a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. 19 (es) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

July 29, 2020 Clearinghouse
41

RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction the First Amended Complaint 38 filed by Defendant The State of California. (Boutin, Gabrielle) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

July 30, 2020 PACER
42

(IN CHAMBERS) Order Granting Plaintiff's Request for Leave to Amend by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick: Considering Plaintiff's request for leave to amend in his opposition to the State's motion to dismiss, the Court accordingly instructs Plaintiff to file, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, a motion for leave to amend in conformance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and Local Rule 15. If Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is granted, the Court will simultaneously deny the instant motion to dismiss as moot. [See document for details.] (es) (Entered: 08/06/2020)

Aug. 6, 2020 PACER
43

JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 3-5 days, filed by Defendant The City of Colton.. (Dunn, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

Aug. 10, 2020 PACER
44

NOTICE OF FILING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. Objections to R&R due by 10/5/2020. (nbo) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

Sept. 21, 2020 PACER
45

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION issued by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick Re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction the First Amended Complaint 38 . IT IS RECOMMENDED that the District Judge issue an Order: (1) accepting this Report and Recommendation; (2) granting the States Motion to Dismiss; and (3) dismissing all claims against the State with prejudice. Under 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1), the parties may file and serve any written objections within fourteen days of service of this Report and Recommendation. (nbo) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

Sept. 21, 2020 Clearinghouse
46

MINUTES (IN CHAMBER) Order to Show by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick: Accordingly, within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to either: (a) show good cause in writing why they have not served the First Amended Complaint; or (b) serve and file the Complaint in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs are expressly forewarned that failure to comply will result in a recommendation of dismissal of the claims against San Bernardino County without prejudice. (See document for details.) (es) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

Oct. 9, 2020 RECAP
47

Order Accepting Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the State of California's Motion to Dismiss is granted, and all claims against the State of California are dismissed with prejudice. (es) (Entered: 10/13/2020)

Oct. 13, 2020 Clearinghouse
48

CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. [SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS AND DEADLINES.] (es) (Entered: 10/22/2020)

Oct. 22, 2020 PACER
49

NOTICE OF FILING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. Objections to R&R due by 12/14/2020. (nbo) (Entered: 11/24/2020)

Nov. 24, 2020 PACER
50

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION issued by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick Re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 . IT IS RECOMMENDED that the District Judge issue an Order: (1) accepting this Report and Recommendation; and (2) directing that Plaintiffs claims against the County of San Bernardino be dismissed. Objections to R&R due by 12/14/2020. (nbo) (Entered: 11/24/2020)

Nov. 24, 2020 Clearinghouse
52

STATUS REPORT filed by Defendant The City of Colton. (Dunn, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/21/2021)

Jan. 21, 2021 PACER
51

Judgment on the Pleadings

Jan. 21, 2021 Clearinghouse
53

Order Accepting Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 50 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all claims against the County of San Bernardino are dismissed. (es) (Entered: 02/12/2021)

Feb. 12, 2021 RECAP
54

SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. The hearing on the MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings 51, scheduled for February 23, 2021 at 10:00 A.M., is hereby VACATED and taken off calendar. No appearances are necessary. The matter stands submitted, and will be decided upon without oral argument. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (nbo) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/18/2021)

Feb. 18, 2021 PACER

Text Only Scheduling Notice

Feb. 19, 2021 PACER
55

NOTICE OF FILING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. Objections to R&R due by 4/1/2021. (nbo) (Entered: 03/12/2021)

March 12, 2021 PACER
56

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION issued by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick Re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 . IT IS RECOMMENDED that the District Judge issue an Order (1) accepting this Report and Recommendation; (2) directing that Plaintiffs claims against the City of Colton be dismissed with prejudice; and (3) entering Judgment closing this case. Objections to R&R due by 4/1/2021. (nbo) (Entered: 03/12/2021)

March 12, 2021 Clearinghouse
57

Order Accepting Report and Recommendation of United States 56 Magistrate Judge by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant City of Colton's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, Plaintiff's claims against the City of Colton are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that Judgment be entered closing this case. (es) (Entered: 04/13/2021)

April 8, 2021 Clearinghouse
58

JUDGMENT by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Pursuant to the Court's Order Accepting the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, IT IS ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed with prejudice. 57 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (es) (Entered: 04/13/2021)

April 8, 2021 Clearinghouse
57

Order Accepting Report and Recommendation of United States 56 Magistrate Judge by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant City of Colton's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, Plaintiff's claims against the City of Colton are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that Judgment be entered closing this case. (es) (Entered: 04/13/2021)

April 8, 2021 RECAP
58

JUDGMENT by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Pursuant to the Court's Order Accepting the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, IT IS ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed with prejudice. 57 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (es) (Entered: 04/13/2021)

April 8, 2021 RECAP

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Election/Voting Rights

Special Collection(s):

COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)

Healthy Elections COVID litigation tracker

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 20, 2020

Closing Date: April 8, 2021

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Manager of ballot initiative

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: Yes

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

City of Colton (Colton, San Bernardino), City

County of San Bernadino (San Bernardino), County

State of California, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

General:

Voting

Voting:

Election administration