This database consolidates and tracks litigation concerning the effect of the pandemic on election law. The purpose of this tool is to provide an interactive list of relevant cases that can be searched by issue, court, status, and jurisdiction.
Case Details
Eilenberg v. City of Colton
Closed. Settled and/or Withdrawn (Dismissal)
Eilenberg v. City of Colton, No. 8:20-cv-00767 (C.D. Cal.) |
||
| Case Summary | Plaintiff managed the effort t 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 to gather and submit signatures within 180 days. Plaintiff alleged that he began the signature gathering process in order to qualify for the ballot, but that the COVID-19 pandemic and the State’s response to the pandemic restricted his ability to do so. Specifically, he alleged that the City refused to allow initiative signature gatherers in the City because the City does not consider signature gatherers to be "essential workers", and refused to remove the signature requirement. Plaintiff filed suit on 4/20/2020 against the City of Colton, the County of San Bernardino, and the State of California claiming that the City, therefore, is effectively blocking the ability to get the initiative on the ballot. By blocking the ability to gather signatures in the City without providing an accommodation (e.g., removing the signature requirement), Plaintiff claimed that he has been deprived of of his Constitutional Rights (Federal and State). Plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief and a writ of mandamus for: (1) an order prohibiting the City from preventing initiative signature gatherers from operating within the City; (2) an order tolling the time for gathering signatures; or, in the alternative, (3) an order placing the initiative on the next general election ballot for the City; or (4) any order the Court deems proper to allow for protection of the Constitutional right to place initiatives on the ballot. | |
| Filed | 04/20/2020 | |
| State | California | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Ninth Circuit | |
| Status | Closed. Settled and/or Withdrawn (Dismissal) | |
| Last Updated | 05/13/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Petition Signature Requirement (Threshold Number, Deadline/Time to Collect, E-signatures) | |
| Complaint(s) | 04/20/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| 06/04/2020: Complaint, Amended Complaint filed. | ||
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 05/14/2020: Order/Ruling, Subsequent to filing the Complaint, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for a TRO with the Court (on 4/29/2020), seeking (1) an order prohibiting the City from preventing initiative signature gatherers from operating within the City; or, in the alternative, (2) an order placing the initiative on the next general election ballot. The Court denied the TRO Application for the following reasons: Plaintiff failed to establish likelihood of success on the merits or that he will suffer irreparable injury without the TRO, and because the "balance of hardships" do not "tip" in Plaintiff's favor. | |
| 07/09/2020: Order/Ruling, Magistrate Judge Report and Recommendation adopted and described in subsequent order. | ||
| 07/29/2020: Order/Ruling, Following the Court's denial of the Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for a TRO, Plaintiff filed an Application for a Preliminary Injunction (on 6/4/2020), seeking (1) an order prohibiting the City from preventing initiative signature gatherers from operating within the City; (2) an order tolling the time for gathering signatures; or, in the alternative, (3) an order placing the initiative on the next general election ballot for the City; and (4) "any order the Court deems proper to allow for protection of the Constitutional right to place initiatives on the ballot". The Court denied the Application for a PI for lack of standing (Plaintiff is not the proponent of the ballot initiative, and he failed to demonstrate injury with sufficient specificity). In addition, the Court found that even if Plaintiff had standing, he has not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits: (1) Arizona’s stay-at-home order "did not create a severe burden when the plaintiff did not use a substantial portion of the time available (before the stay-at-home order was issued) to gather signatures"; (2) Plaintiff failed to demonstrate "that the initiative would have gathered the requisite number of signatures but for the Governor’s stay-at-home order"; and (3) the relief sought by the Plaintiff "would upend the State’s interest in ensuring the integrity of its election process through a signature requirement." | ||
| 10/13/2020: Order/Ruling, Order accepting the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge by presiding Judge Olguin that the defendant's motion to dismiss be granted on the grounds that the State is immune from suit under the 11th Amendment's grant of sovereign immunity; thus, the State of California's (defendent) motion to dismiss is granted, and all claims against the State of California are dismissed with prejudice. | ||
