.. ~ \! vi 'i, 2 3 4 5 6 7 Craig A. Sherman, Esq. (SBN 171224) CRAIG A. SHERMAN, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. 1901 First A venue, Suite 219 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 702-7892 Email: CraigShermanAPC@gmail.com Attorney for Plaintiffs PARENTS FOR QUALITY EDUCATION; MARGARET SANBORN; and RICARDO CASTILLO ;. '"l. '.; f. t. ' ~,i wrn SEP PM I: 33 f ' i c,st~:;j ~,{u,; uoj;,ff i if l;o/; '<J:;., 8 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DlVISION 11 PARENTS FOR QUALITY EDUCATION; MARGARET SANBORN, an individual; 12 and RICARDO CASTILLO, an individual; 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; KEVIN BEISER, in his official capacity as 16 Board President of the San Diego Unified School District; CITY OF SAN DIEGO; 17 MYRTLE COLE, in her official capacity as President of the San Diego City Council; L. 18 MICHAEL VU, in his official capacity as the Registrar of Voters of San Diego County; and 19 DOES ONE through TWENTY-FIVE, inclusive; 20 Defendants I Respondents. 21 Case N O. 37-201 s--00049253-eu-j R-CTL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY ANB INJ-BNCTIVE R-Ebl-EFi PEJil'ION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [Violation of The California Voting Rights Act of 2001] 22 23 24 25 26 27 KEVIN BEISER and TOM KELIINOI, candidates in the general election for the District B seat on the San Diego Unified Board of Education; MICHAEL MCQUARY and MARCIA NORDSTROM, candidates in the general election for the District C seat on the San Diego Unified Board of Education; and DOES TWENTY-SIX through FIFTY, inclusive; Real Parties in Interest. - 1 - COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDA TE
I. 2 3 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF LAWSUIT This action challenges defendant SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT's 4 ("SDUSD") imposition of a discriminatory at-large system to elect members of its governing board, 5 because this election system violates the California Voting Rights Act ("CVRA"), California 6 Elections Code, section 14025 et seq. But SDUSD is not wholly to blame because defendant CITY 7 OF SAN DIEGO's ("City"), as the charter city controlling the historic and now arcane election 8 methodology for the membership of the SDUSD school board ("SDUSD School Board"), has refused 9 to revise and correct said voting methodology. 10 2. Therefore, this action more directly challenges the CITY OF SAN DIEGO's ("City") 11 breach of its legal and ministerial duty to allow and provide an election system that complies with the 12 CVRA, because City's voting scheme for the SDUSD, as set forth in City Charter 66 - providing 13 for district-wide at-large voting to elect particular school district representatives for the SDUSD 14 board members - discriminates and prevents certain races or ethnic groups from electability to the 15 SDUSD school board. 16 3. Because City and SDUSD continue to allow, and refuse to take action to correct the 17 violative voting methodology, Plaintiffs name and sue defendant L. MICHAEL VU, as the 18 Registrar of Voters of San Diego County ("Registrar of Voters") to prevent him and his office 19 from certifying results of the November 6, 2018 election because it is known and can be proven 20 that said election and City's and SDUSD's election methodology violates the CVRA. 21 4. Because Plaintiffs' lawsuit seeks to invalidate the November 6, 2018 election for 22 the SDUSD School Board, Plaintiffs also name those running for election as real parties in 23 interest, KEVIN BEISER, TOM KELIINOI, MICHAEL MCQUARY, and MARCIA 24 NORDSTROM (hereafter "Real Parties"), because enjoining and disqualifying the election 25 results of the November 6, 2018 election stands to impair potential rights of said named Real 26 Parties. 27-2 -
II. 2 PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3 5. Plaintiff PARENTS FOR QUALITY EDUCATION ("PQE") is a public interest 4 group formed under California laws to improve public education through increased involvement 5 of parents and the community in the educational process. The ultimate goals are to strengthen 6 the capacity of communities to act as catalysts to transform and revitalize public education, so 7 every child receives a quality education and establish a grassroots presence in local, state, and 8 federal legislative bodies to positively influence K-12 education policy and secure adequate laws 9 to ensure quality education for children and youth. 10 6. On or before March of 2017, PQE initiated a local San Diego initiative and 11 project called "Community Voices for Education" (CVE) to bring accountability, transparency, 12 and real representation in San Diego's public education system so that every child receives a 13 quality education. PQE began advocating through CVE for the City reform the election 14 methodology for School Board Election. CVE objected and demanded that City revise the 15 election process for the SDSUD School Board to have Subdistrict only elections, following the 16 model of City Council elections. 17 7. Plaintiff MARGARET SANBORN is a registered City and SDUSD voter who 18 lives within one of the SDUSD school subdistricts and is of API race, descent, or ethnicity that is 19 both impaired in its ability to elect a SDSUD School Board member and who is a member of a 20 "protected class," as that term is defined in the CVRA. 21 8. Plaintiff RICARDO CASTILLO is a registered City and SDUSD voter who lives 22 within one of the SDUSD school subdistricts and is of Latino race, descent, or ethnicity that is 23 both impaired in ability to elect SDSUD School Board members who are members of a 24 "protected class," as that term is defined in the CVRA. 25 9. Defendant SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ("SDUSD") is a public 26 school district within the State of California, County of San Diego serving all public school 27 grades including K-12. SDUSD is required to follow the mandate, and prevent violations, of the CVRA. - 3 -
10. Defendant CITY OF SAN DIEGO ("City") is organized and existing under the 2 laws of the State of California, and its status as a Charter City, with its governing body as the 3 San Diego City Council. City is required to follow the mandate, and prevent violations, of the 4 CVRA. 5 11. Defendant L. MICHAEL VU is the Registrar of Voters for the County of San 6 Diego (hereafter "Registrar of Voters"), who is named and sued to prevent him and his office 7 from certifying results of the November 6, 2018 election because Plaintiffs and this Court need 8 to have jurisdiction and control to order the Registrar of Voters to take specific preventative and 9 prohibited action once it is proven that said election and election methodology was conducted in 10 violation of the CVRA. 11 12. Because Plaintiffs' lawsuit seeks to invalidate the November 6, 2018 election for 12 the SDUSD School Board, Plaintiffs also name those running for election as real parties in 13 interest, KEVIN BEISER, TOM KELIINOI, MICHAEL MCQUARY, and MARCIA 14 NORDSTROM (hereafter "Real Parties"), because enjoining and disqualifying the election 15 results of the November 6, 2018 election stands to impair the rights of said named Real Parties. 16 Specifically, Real Pa~ies KEVIN BEISER and TOM KELIINOI are candidates for election of 17 the seat for Subdistrict Bon the SDUSD School Board and Real Parties MICHAEL MCQUARY 18 and MARCIA NORDSTROM are candidates for the seat for Subdistrict C seat on the SDUSD 19 School Board. 20 13. The true names and capacities of defendants and respondents DOES ONE through 21 TWENTY-FIVE, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore sue such unknown 22 defendants by fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 474. The true 23 names and capacities of real parties in interest DOES TWENTY-SIX through FIFTY are also 24 unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore sue such unknown real parties by fictitious names pursuant 25 to California Code of Civil Procedure 474. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege the 26 true names and capacities of any unknown or necessary defendants, respondents, or real parties 27 in interest sued herein as DOES ONE through FIFTY, inclusive, if and when ascertained. - 4 -
14. All parties hereto are within the unlimited jurisdiction of this Court. The unlawful 2 acts complained occurred in San Diego County. Venue in this Court is proper. 3 III. 4 ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 5 15. SDUSD is located in San Diego County, California and mainly serves the area in 6 and around the City. The governing SDUSD School Board is made up of five members who are 7 elected district wide, with each of the SDUSD's five Subdistricts nominating the top two 8 candidates for their board representatives in the primary election, but the entire SDUSD school 9 district votes "at-large" for each Subdistrict representative in the general election. Each elected 10 member is purported to represent the entire school district. The at-large voting process, for the 11 SDUSD School Board, does not align with most every other publicly elected school board 12 official, including City Council offices for the City, and further does not align with any of the 13 other three largest school districts in the state. 14 16. The total emollment of students served by SDUSD, as of September 15, 2017, 15 was 127,112 students, of whom only 23% are white (as of January 25, 2017). This is in stark 16 contrast to members serving on the Board which is 60-80% white and potentially or 17 approximately 60% non-hispanic white. This reflects the systematic unfairness of at-large 18 elections in which a district-wide white electorate majority elects predominantly white 19 candidates of their choice, even though the number of white students is a demographic minority 20 of actual students in the SDUSD school system. 21 17. The at-large method of SDUSD School Board elections disenfranchises African 22 Americans, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Latinos, Inda-Chinese, Native Americans, Filipinos, and 23 others, who together make up 77% of the SDUSD school district. Under the CVRA, the at-large 24 elections system must be replaced by a district-based system so that non-white groups, who are 25 electoral race and ethnic minorities, but represent a majority of the actual student population, 26 may have their chance and fair opportunities to elect candidates of their choice, rather than the 27 disparate and water-down election process that results from an at-large election. - 5 -
18. Elections conducted for the SDUSD School Board are characterized by racially 2 polarized voting. Racially polarized voting occurs when members of a protected class, as 3 defined by the CVRA and California Elections Code 14025, subdivision (d), vote for 4 candidates and electoral choices that are limited, different, or watered-down from the rest of the 5 electorate based on the manner of voting or the districts drawn for voting. Racially polarized 6 voting exists for the SDUSD School Board for Latino and API voters because their choice of 7 candidates, as compared with other non-latino or API candidates, who are preferred as Latino or 8 API candidates, usually lose and have little or no chance of winning in an at-large election. 9 19. Racially polarized voting is legally significant in SDUSD School Board elections Io because it dilutes the opportunity of Latino and API voters to elect candidates of their choice. 11 Patterns of racially polarized voting has the effect of impeding the opportunity for Latino and 12 API voters to elect candidates of their choice via an at-large election where Latino and API 13 populations have their votes diluted, as opposed to Subdistrict elections wherein Latino and API 14 voters, either as individual groups or as a coalition, have the opportunity to elect candidates of 15 their choice. For several years now, Latino and API voters have been harmed by racially 16 polarized voting and the City's and SDUSD's voting methodology. 17 20. The at-large method of election and repeated racially polarized voting has caused 18 Latino and API voting dissolution within the SDUSD School Board. When Latinos or API and 19 the rest of the electorate express different preferences for candidates and other electoral choices, 20 non-latino and API voters, by virtue of overall numerical majority among voters in the at-large 21 district level dilute the preferences of Latino and API voters. 22 21. The obstacles posed by City's and SDUSD's at-large method of election, together 23 with racially polarized voting, impairs the ability of people of certain races, color, language, or 24 minority groups, such as Latino and API voters, to elect candidates of their choice or to influence 25 the outcome of elections conducted for the SDUSD School Board. 26 22. An alternative and more regularly accepted method of elections exists, by way of 27 district-based elections, that will provide an opportunity for the members of the protected classes - 6 -
(as defined by the CVRA) to elect candidates of their choice and be able to have a more regular 2 and fair manner to influence and have a say in the outcome of SDUSD School Board elections. 3 IV. 4 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION -DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 5 Violation of California Voting Rights Act of 2001 6 (As Against Defendant City) 7 23. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all paragraphs above and below as 8 if set forth fully herein. 9 10 24. 25. City is a political subdivision within the state of California and is a charter city. Pursuant to California Elections Code 14026, subdivision ( c ), the CVRA applies 11 to charter cities. 12 26. City, through its governing body of the City Council, has the inherent power to 13 enact laws or new ordinances to comply with State Law including the CVRA. 14 27. City is aware of the racial polarization and vote dilution arising from at-large 15 elections for members of the SDUSD School Board. 16. Racially polarized voting has occurred, and continues to occur, in elections for the 17 members of the SDSUD School Board. As a result, City's at-large method of election for the 18 SDUSD School Board is imposed in a manner that impairs the ability of protected classes, as 19 defined by the CVRA, to elect candidates of their choice or influence the outcome of elections. 20 29. An alternative method of elections, such as district-based elections, exists that 21 will provide an opportunity for the members of a protected class (as defined by the CVRA) to 22 elect candidates of their choice or influence the outcome of the SDUSD School Board elections. 23 30. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs and 24 Defendants, relating to the legal rights and duties of Plaintiffs and CITY. 25 31. Specifically, City has a duty under the CVRA to use its inherent legislative 26 powers to stop racial polarization and vote dilution under the CVRA as currently present in the 27 City Charter. - 7 -
32. Plaintiffs have a clear, present and beneficial right to the proper performance by 2 City in its duties and compliance with the laws and legal principles as set forth herein. 3 33. The declaratory and injunctive relief requested herein is proper to delineate and 4 clarify the parties' rights and liabilities and resolve, quiet, or stabilize an uncertain or disputed 5 jural relation and to prevent further violations of the CVRA. Without the grant of declaratory 6 relief and the granting of an injunction, City will continue to proceed in a manner not allowed by 7 law and will continue to take action outside of the law and their authority resulting in harm to 8 Plaintiffs, its members, supporters, and the citizenry of the City of San Diego and State of 9 California for whom this litigation is equally brought. In order to vindicate the legislative intent 10 of the CVRA and to enforce their respective provisions, Plaintiffs have no choice but to obtain 11 the relief sought herein. 12 34. Plaintiffs seek a judicial determination that Charter 66 violates the CVRA in its 13 current form and manner of implementation and therefore is null, void, and unenforceable. 14 35. Plaintiffs seek a judicial determination regarding City's compliance with the 15 CVRA for a remedy and vindication of the rights of all voters within the school district, 16 including Plaintiffs. A declaratory judgment should be granted in favor of Plaintiffs as alleged 17 and requested herein. 18 V. 19 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION -PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 20 (As Against Defendant City) 21 36. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all paragraphs above and below as 22 if set forth fully herein. 23 37. Plaintiffs do not have any plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary 24 course of law. Plaintiffs' only recourse is the relief provided by the CVRA which provides for 25 judicial review. 26 38. If the City's actions are allowed to stand and continue, Plaintiffs' rights will be 27 impaired and will suffer irreparable harm, including racially polarized voting, in elections for the members of the SDUSD School Board, and in elections incorporating other electoral choices by - 8 -
voters residing within the geographical districts of the SDUSD. No money damages or other 2 legal remedy could adequately compensate Plaintiffs for the harm from violation of their rights 3 under the CVRA that City has caused and will continue to cause by acting in contravention and 4 refusing to comply with the CVRA. 5 39. Plaintiffs request that this Court issue a peremptory writ of mandamus directing 6 City to comply wit_h its duties, and correct the at-large election method that violates the CVRA. 7 VI. s THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION -DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 9 Violation of California Voting Rights Act of 2001 10 (Against Defendant SDUSD) 11 40. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all paragraphs above and below as 12 if set forth fully herein. 13 41. SDUSD is a political subdivision within the state of California and is a school 14 district. 15 42. SDUSD accepts that City (through its laws and City Charter) employs a modified 16 at-large method of election, whereby each of SDUSD's five Subdistricts holds a primary vote, 17 with the top two vote-getters competing in an at-large general election in which the entire 18 jurisdiction votes to elect SDUSD School Board members. 19 43. Racially polarized voting has occurred, and continues to occur, in elections for the 20 members of the SDUSD School Board. As a result, SDUSD has accepted, not challenged, nor 21 requested that City amend the City's at-large method of election that impairs the ability of 22 protected classes, as defined by the CVRA, to elect candidates of their choice or influence the 23 outcome of elections. 24 44. Alternative methods of elections, such as district-based elections, exist that will 25 provide an opportunity for the members of a protected class (as defined by the CVRA) to elect 26 candidates of their choice or influence the outcome of the SDUSD School Board elections. 27 45. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties relating to the legal rights and duties of Plaintiffs and SDUSD and City regarding the manner of voting for - 9 - COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEf AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
SDUSD School Board elections. 2 46. Plaintiffs have a clear, present and beneficial right to the proper performance by 3 SDUSD and City in their duties and compliance with the laws and legal principles as set forth 4 herein. 5 47. The declaratory and injunctive relief requested herein is proper to delineate and 6 clarify the parties' rights and liabilities and resolve, quiet, or stabilize an uncertain or disputed 7 jural relation and to prevent further violations of the CVRA. Without the grant of declaratory 8 relief and the granting of an injunction, SDUSD will continue to allow and/or promote that City 9 will proceed in a manner not allowed by law and will continue to take action outside of the law 10 and their authority resulting in harm to Plaintiffs, its members, supporters, and the citizemy of 11 the SDUSD and City of San Diego and State of California for whom this litigation is equally 12 brought. In order to vindicate the legislative intent of the CVRA and to enforce their respective 13 provisions, Plaintiffs have no choice but to obtain the relief sought herein. 14 48. Plaintiffs seek a judicial determination of SDUSD' s lack of compliance with the 15 CVRA and a vindication of the rights of all voters within the district. A declaratory judgment 16 should be granted in favor of Plaintiffs as alleged and requested herein. 17 49. Plaintiffs seek an injunction to prohibit the future election of board members of 18 the SDUSD School Board through at-large district voting, and a preliminary and permanent 19 injunction that no SDUSD School Board member, elected as a result of the November 6, 2018, 20 be seated on the SDUSD School Board and may not make any vote, fake any action, or perform 21 any duty of a duly elected SDUSD School Board member until compliance with the CVRA is 22 obtained as alleged herein. 23 VII. 24 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION - PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 25 (As Against Defendant SDUSD) 26 50. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all paragraphs above and below as 27 if set forth fully herein. - 10 -
51. Plaintiffs do not have any plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary 2 course of law. Plaintiffs' only recourse is the relief provided by the CVRA which provides for 3 judicial review. 4 52. If the SDUSD's actions are allowed to stand and continue, Plaintiffs' rights will s be impaired and will suffer irreparable harm, including racially polarized voting, in elections for 6 the five members of the Board, and in elections incorporating other electoral choices by voters 7 residing within the SDUSD. No money damages or other legal remedy could adequately 8 compensate Plaintiffs for the harm from violation of their rights under the CVRA that SDUSD 9 has caused, allowed to continue and/or endorse, and will continue to cause by continuing at-large Io elections. 11 53. Plaintiffs request that this Court issue a peremptory writ of mandamus directing 12 SDUSD to take all reasonable and necessary actions to move to a district-based election system 13 (rather than at-large method), and ordering that SDUSD not seat any Board member elected in 14 the November 6, 2018 election, or any subsequent election, unless and until such elections are 15 held in a member that complies with the CVRA. 16 VIII. 11 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION -DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 18 Violation of California Voting Rights Act of 2001 19 (As Against Defendant Registrar of Voters) 20 21 22 54. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all paragraphs above and below as if set forth fully herein. 55. Defendant Registrar of Voters certifies elections in San Diego County, including 23 elections for the SDUSD School Board. 24 55. The Registrar of Voters shall not certify an election which has been alleged, is 25 known, and/or has been proven to be in violation of the CVRA. 26 56. Based on allegations in this Complaint that are to be proven in this lawsuit, the 27 method of at-large elections for seats on the SDUSD School Board violates the CVRA and thus - 11 -
an appropriate court order to the Registrar of Voters may be made to prevent, suspend and cure 2 any such violations. 3 57. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief that the results of the 4 November 6, 2018 election for seats on the SDUSD School Board not be certified by the 5 Registrar of Voters and, henceforth, the Registrar of Voters may only certify voting results in 6 subsequent elections to the SDUSD School Board once a remedial and an alternate system (such 7 as a district-based voting methodology), that is compliant with the CVRA, is put into place. 8 IX. 9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants SDUSD, City and 11 Registrar of Voters, and each of them, as follows: 12 1. For a declaration of law and judgment in favor of Plaintiffs that City's and 13 SDUSD's current, at-large method of election for the SDUSD School Board violates the 14 California Voting Rights Act of 2001. 15 2. For a preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit defendant SDUSD from 16 seating board members from the results of the November 6, 2018 election for all board member 17 positions voted upon during said election, and not seat any board members from subsequent 18 elections until an alternative to the at-large system of electing SDUSD School Board members is 19 replaced with a method compliant with the CVRA. 20 3. For a writ of mandate commanding and compelling City and SDUSD to 21 implement district-based elections, as defined by the California Voting Rights Act of 2001, or 22 other alternative relief tailored to remedy City's and SDUSD's violation of the California Voting 23 Rights Act of 2001 before it may seat any new members of the SDUSD School Board. 24 4. For a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting that the Registrar of 25 Voters may not certify the election or election results of the November 6, 2018 election for the 26 SDUSD School Board candidates that was known, and/or has been proven, to violate the CVRA, 27 and that the Registrar of Voters may not certify voting election results for SDUSD School Board - 12 -
in subsequent elections until an alternate system is put into place that is compliant with the 2 CVRA. 3 5. For a declaration of law and judgment that City Charter 66, in its current form 4 and content, violates the CVRA and is null and void, to the extent it is not compliant with 5 existing state law under as enacted by the State Legislature under the CVRA. 6 6. That Plaintiffs have a right to preliminary and injunctive relief, and/or a writ of 7 mandate to prevent implementation of City Charter 66 and compel nullification and courts ordered amendment of City Charter 66 in its current form, including but not limited to 9 mandated implementation of district-based elections (as defined, required, or contemplated by 10 the California Voting Rights Act of 2001), or other alternative relief tailored by this Court to 11 remedy City's and SDUSD's violation of the CVRA. 12 7. For reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit pursuant to the CVRA, California 13 Elections Code 14030, California Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5, and any other relevant 14 statutes. 15 8. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, or otherwise 16 is allowed and naturally flowing from such claims and requested remedies, as a matter of law or 17 based on equities and necessity for appropriate remedial relief. 18 19 20 Dated: September 27, 2018 21 22 23 24 25 CRAIG A. SHERMAN Attorney for Plaintiffs PARENTS FOR QUALITY EDUCATION, MARGARET SANBORN, and RICARDO CASTILLO 26 27-13 -
1 X 2 VERIFICATIONS 3 I, Bret Caslavaka, as a duly authorized officer and president of the Plaintiff organization 4 PARENTS FOR QUALITY EDUCATION, hereby verifies this COMPLAINT FOR 5 DECLARATORY RELIEF AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 6 pursuant to Civil Procedure Section 446. The facts herein alleged are true of my own and my 7 organization's knowledge, except as to the matters which are based on information and belief, 8 which I believe to be true. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of California that 9 the above foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on the below stated 10 date in San Diego County, California. 11 Dated: September 27, 2018 12 13 By~~ ~slavaka 14 15 We, Margaret Sanborn and Ricardo Castillo are individuals who verify this COMPLAINT 16 FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF 17 MANDATE pursuant to Civil Procedure Section 446. The facts herein alleged are true of our own 18 knowledge, except as to the matters which are based on information and belief, which we believe to 19 be true. We declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the above 20 foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on the below stated date in San 21 Diego County, California. 22 Dated: September 27, 2018 23 By:---...~="',F---~= =::..._--- Ricardo Castillo 24 25 Dated: September, 2018 26 27-14-