Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01526/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01526-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF MERCED’S PROPOSED ORDER CASE NO. 06-CV-01526-OWW-DLB 

GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FELIX M. LOPEZ, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

MERCED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, et al., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 06-CV-01526-OWW-DLB 

COUNTY OF MERCED’S ORDER 

GRANTING MOTIONS TO 

DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND 

JUDGES: Hon. Oliver W. Wanger 

 Hon. Jay S. Bybee 

 Hon. Anthony W. Ishii 

COUNTY OF MERCED COUNTY COUNSEL

JAMES N. FINCHER, SBN 196837 

COUNTY COUNSEL 

COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 

2222 M STREET, ROOM 309 

MERCED, CA 95340 

TELEPHONE (209) 385-7564 

NIELSEN, MERKSAMER, PARRINELLO, 

 MUELLER & NAYLOR, LLP 

MARGUERITE MARY LEONI, SBN 101696 

CHRISTOPHER E. SKINNELL, SBN 227093 

591 REDWOOD HIGHWAY, #4000 

MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 

TELEPHONE (415) 389-6800 

FAX (415) 388-6874 

Attorneys for Defendant

COUNTY OF MERCED, CALIFORNIA

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-01526-OWW -DLB Document 166 Filed 06/08/07 Page 1 of 8
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF MERCED’S PROPOSED ORDER CASE NO. 06-CV-01526-OWW-DLB 

GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

On May 16, 2007, these matters came before a three-judge panel appointed by the Chief 

Judge of the Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284 on the motions to dismiss the First Amended 

Complaint of Defendants COUNTY OF MERCED, CITY OF LOS BANOS (“LOS BANOS”), and 

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (“LAFCO”) for failure to state a claim (Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(6)), in which motions Defendant LE GRAND COMMUNITY SERVICES 

DISTRICT (“LE GRAND”) joined; and also on the supplemental motions of Defendants COUNTY 

OF MERCED and LOS BANOS to dismiss on the grounds of mootness (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)) 

and failure to state a claim due to the lack of sufficient specificity of the remaining allegation in 

paragraph 19 of the First Amended Complaint (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)), which supplemental 

motions were also joined by LE GRAND and LAFCO. All parties appeared by counsel. This order 

memorializes the oral decision issued from the bench on May 16, 2007. 

A. Background. 

1. This is a case before a three-judge court, brought under Section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act of the United States, 42 U.S.C. §1973c (“Section 5”). Section 5 requires that 

“preclearance” be received from either the U.S. Attorney General or a three-judge federal district 

court in the District of Columbia before any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or 

standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on” 

specified dates (in this case, November 1, 1972), and affecting voting in certain “covered” states 

and “political subdivisions,” may be implemented. 

2. Defendant COUNTY OF MERCED is a “covered political subdivision” subject to 

the preclearance requirement of Section 5. See 40 Fed. Reg. 43746 (Sept. 23, 1975); 28 C.F.R., 

Appendix to Pt. 51. 

3. Defendant CITY OF LOS BANOS is a city organized pursuant to the laws of 

California, and located within the boundaries of the County of Merced. Lopez v. Merced County, 

473 F. Supp. 2d 1072, 1076 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (hereafter “Lopez v. Merced I”). 

4. Defendant LE GRAND COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT is a special district 

organized pursuant to the laws of California, and located within the boundaries of the County of 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-01526-OWW -DLB Document 166 Filed 06/08/07 Page 2 of 8
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF MERCED’S PROPOSED ORDER CASE NO. 06-CV-01526-OWW-DLB 

GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Merced. Lopez v. Merced I, 473 F. Supp. 2d at 1076. 

5. Defendant LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION is a public 

administrative agency created pursuant to the laws of the State of California, vested with the power 

to determine boundary changes to local government agencies, such as the annexations, detachments, 

consolidations and formations pertaining to defendant cities and special districts. LAFCO is not a 

subdivision of a covered jurisdiction. LAFCO does not register voters, nor does it hold elections.

See also Lopez v. Merced I, 473 F. Supp. 2d at 1076. 

6. The First Amended Complaint (Dkt. #100) was filed, by stipulation of the parties, on 

March 8, 2007. In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that LOS BANOS adopted 26 

specific annexations, since November 1, 1972, that LE GRAND was formed and adopted two 

specific annexations since November 1, 1972, and that those annexations and formation have not 

been submitted for preclearance pursuant to Section 5. First Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 12-14 & 16 

and Appendix A. 

7. Plaintiffs additionally allege, on information and belief, that the Defendants herein 

have adopted, approved and implemented other, unspecified “changes affecting voting” that require 

preclearance and for which preclearance has not been sought and obtained. First Amended 

Complaint, ¶ 19. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the implementation of these 

unspecified changes without preclearance. First Amended Complaint, Prayer. 

8. Plaintiffs contend that LOS BANOS, LE GRAND and LAFCO are “covered” by 

Section 5, and therefore preclearance of the annexations and formation is required. First Amended 

Complaint, ¶¶ 15 & 18. Plaintiffs seek a declaration to that effect and injunctive relief to preclude 

defendants from conducting any elections in the unprecleared municipal and district boundaries until 

those boundaries receive preclearance. First Amended Complaint, Prayer. 

9. Each of the 26 annexations adopted by Defendant LOS BANOS, and identified in 

Paragraphs 12-14 of the First Amended Complaint were submitted for preclearance on October 1, 

2006, Lopez v. Merced I, 473 F. Supp. 2d at 1077, and received preclearance on December 4, 

2006. See Notice of Preclearance Received (Annexations-City of Los Banos) (Dkt. #66). 

10. The formation and two annexations to LE GRAND were submitted for preclearance, 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-01526-OWW -DLB Document 166 Filed 06/08/07 Page 3 of 8
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF MERCED’S PROPOSED ORDER CASE NO. 06-CV-01526-OWW-DLB 

GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and preclearance was granted on April 23, 2007. See Notice of Preclearance Received (Le Grand 

Community Services District—Formation & Two Annexations) (Dkt. #159). 

11. The parties stipulated that Defendants’ motions to dismiss the initial complaint for 

failure to state a claim, filed in November and December of 2006, would be deemed responsive to 

the First Amended Complaint as well. (Dkt. #100.) Defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds 

that LOS BANOS, LE GRAND and LAFCO are not “political subdivisions” as that term is defined 

in the Voting Rights Act, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973c & 1973l(c)(2), and are therefore not subject to 

the preclearance requirement. (Dkt. #s 27, 58 & 60.) Defendant LAFCO also contended that it 

does not register voters, set elections or conduct elections. Defendant COUNTY OF MERCED 

also contended in its motion that Paragraph 19 lacked a sufficient factual predicate to state a claim. 

Defendant LOS BANOS also contended in its motion that the complaint failed to state a claim 

because under the facts as alleged and uncontested facts subject to judicial notice, (1) there could be 

no potential adverse effect on voting rights of the protected class as a result of the annexations, and 

(2) the preclearance of the precinct changes resulting from the annexations by the Department of 

Justice complies with the Defendants’ Section 5 obligations, if any. 

12. On March 14 & 15, 2007, Defendants COUNTY OF MERCED and LOS BANOS 

also filed, with leave of Court, supplemental motions to dismiss on the grounds that claims 

concerning the specifically-identified formation and annexations alleged in Paragraphs 12-14 and 

Appendix A of the First Amended Complaint were all moot, or would be moot by the date of this 

hearing, and renewing the objection to Paragraph 19.1

B. Supplemental Motions To Dismiss On The Ground of Mootness (FRCP 12(b)(1)) 

The Court GRANTS the Supplemental Motions to Dismiss on the grounds of mootness. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel admitted at the hearing on these motions that the claims related to the 

formation and annexations specifically identified in Paragraphs 12-14 and Appendix A of the First 

 

1

In granting leave to file such motions, the Court recognized that the annexations and 

formation for LE GRAND were not at that time yet precleared, though preclearance had been 

sought. Recognizing, however, that preclearance was likely to be obtained before this motion could 

be heard, the Court directed the parties to brief the supplemental motions as if it had already been 

received, in the interests of judicial economy. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-01526-OWW -DLB Document 166 Filed 06/08/07 Page 4 of 8
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF MERCED’S PROPOSED ORDER CASE NO. 06-CV-01526-OWW-DLB 

GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Amended Complaint are moot because these activities have been submitted for and precleared 

under Section 5. 

C. Motions To Dismiss Paragraph 19 For Failure To State A Claim (FRCP 12(b)(6))

The Court GRANTS the Motions to Dismiss for failure of Paragraph 19 to state a claim. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and the standard articulated in Conley v. Gibson, 

355 U.S. 41 (1957), a sufficient factual description of the nature of the claim to permit the 

defendants to frame a response is required. 

Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend to identify specific actions by Defendants that 

Plaintiffs allege require preclearance. The Court requests that Plaintiffs’ counsel communicate in 

good faith with Defendants’ counsel with regard to the factual bases for any further claims so that 

there is not an unnecessary expenditure of the resources, time or effort of the parties or the Court. 

D. LAFCO’s Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim (FRCP 12(b)(6)) 

The Court GRANTS LAFCO’s motion to dismiss, without prejudice. 

Based on the stipulation of the Plaintiffs at oral argument, LAFCO is not an entity subject to 

the preclearance requirement, because it is neither a subdivision of the County, nor does it engage in 

any activity that concerns the registering of voters, or the conduct of elections in the County. See 

also Lopez v. Merced I, 473 F. Supp. 2d at 1076 (“LAFCO does not hold elections nor does 

LAFCO have any role in the election certification process.”) 

E. All Other Motions To Dismiss 

Because the claims alleged in Paragraphs 12 & 14 of the First Amended Complaint are 

moot, and Paragraph 19 is dismissed for failure to state a claim, the Court declines to rule on all 

other motions to dismiss. At this time, any declaration on the question of Section 5 coverage or the 

granting of further injunctive relief would not be based on any specific facts and thus constitute an 

advisory opinion, unless Plaintiffs file a second amended complaint stating facts raising these issues 

and Defendants renew their motions. 

F. Orders With Regard To Discovery And The Time For Filing An Amended Complaint

1. Plaintiffs are given leave to file a second amended complaint with respect to any or 

all Defendants by July 3, 2007. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-01526-OWW -DLB Document 166 Filed 06/08/07 Page 5 of 8
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF MERCED’S PROPOSED ORDER CASE NO. 06-CV-01526-OWW-DLB 

GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. Any discovery requests, other than noticed depositions, that Plaintiffs plan to serve 

on LE GRAND with a view to substantiating a further amendment of the complaint shall be served 

on LE GRAND on or before May 31, 2007. LE GRAND shall have until June 15, 2007, to 

respond to any such discovery requests. 

3. Any discovery requests, other than noticed depositions, that Plaintiffs plan to serve 

on the COUNTY OF MERCED and LOS BANOS with a view to substantiating a further 

amendment of the complaint, shall be served on those defendants on or before June 5, 2007. The 

COUNTY OF MERCED and LOS BANOS shall have until June 20, 2007, to respond to any such 

discovery requests. 

4. Any depositions that Plaintiffs seek to conduct with a view to substantiating a 

further amendment of the complaint shall be completed by June 25, 2007. 

APPROVED AS TO FORM: 

DATED: ____________, 2007 ROBERT RUBIN 

 Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights 

JOAQUIN G. AVILA 

MICHAEL TRAYNOR 

MAUREEN P. ALGER 

CHARLES M. SCHAIBLE 

 Cooley Godward Kronish, LLP 

_____________________________________ 

BY: 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-01526-OWW -DLB Document 166 Filed 06/08/07 Page 6 of 8
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF MERCED’S PROPOSED ORDER CASE NO. 06-CV-01526-OWW-DLB 

GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DATED: May 24, 2007 JOSEPH WELLS ELLINWOOD 

 Abbott & Kindermann, LLP 

/S/ Joseph Wells Ellinwood . 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CITY OF LOS BANOS 

DATED: May 25, 2007 GENE TANAKA 

CHRISTOPHER H. CALFEE 

MELINDA LEONG 

 Best Best & Krieger, LLP

/S/ Gene Tanaka .

Attorneys for Defendant 

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION 

COMMISSION 

DATED: May 25, 2007 THOMAS J. KEENE 

 Linneman, Burgess, Telles, Van Atta, Vierra, 

 Rathmann, Whitehurst & Keene

/S/ Thomas J. Keene .

Attorneys for Defendant 

LE GRAND COMMUNITY 

SERVICES DISTRICT 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-01526-OWW -DLB Document 166 Filed 06/08/07 Page 7 of 8
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF MERCED’S PROPOSED ORDER CASE NO. 06-CV-01526-OWW-DLB 

GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SO ORDERED. 

Entered this 8th day of June, 2007. 

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

____________________________________

OLIVER W. WANGER 

United States District Judge 

/s/ Jay S. Bybee 

____________________________________ 

JAY S. BYBEE 

United States Circuit Judge 

/s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

____________________________________ 

ANTHONY W. ISHII 

United States District Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-01526-OWW -DLB Document 166 Filed 06/08/07 Page 8 of 8