Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/36091357/BARNETT-v-DUNN-STATE-CASE-CALI-Memorandum-of-Points-and-Authorities-DefaultDMS
Timestamp: 2017-01-22 05:13:00
Document Index: 593182203

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 2101', '§ 2150', '§ 2150', '§ 2150', '§ 2150', '§ 2153', '§ 2153', '§ 5100', '§ 8001', '§ 2', '§ 8001', '§ 8001', '§ 8001', '§ 8070', '§ 8120', '§ 13314', '§ 13314', '§ 452', '§ 452', '§ 98', '§ 12172', '§ 98', '§ 452', '§ 452', '§ 8001', '§ 8001', '§ 8001', '§ 2150', '§ 2150', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 2', '§ 13314', '§ 13314', '§ 8001', '§ 8120', '§ 2', '§ 13314', '§ 8001', '§ 80', '§ 8001', '§ 5100', '§5100', '§ 8001', '§ 2150', '§ 2153', '§2153', '§ 2101', '§ 8001', '§2150', '§ 12172', '§ 8070', '§ 8120', '§ 10125', '§ 8001', '§ 12172']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoin1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EDMUND G. B R O W N JR.
Attomey General of Califomia
STEPHEN P. ACQUISTO
Supervising Deputy Attomey General
Deputy Attomey General State Bar No. 232650 13001 Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916)323-6879 Fax: (916)324-8835 E-mail: Aiithony.OBrien@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants Edmund G Brown Jr California Attorney General, and Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
LED/ENDORSED
PAMELA BARNETT, Plaintiff,
CaseNo. 34-2010-00077415 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Code Civ. Proc § 430.10, subd. (e)) October 25, 2010 9:00 a.m. 54 The Honorable Shelleyanne Chang Trial Date: Not Yet Set Action Filed: May 10, 2010
DAMON JERRELL DUNN, ET AL..
Defendants. Date: Time: Dept: Judge:
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Demurrer to Plamtiffs Complaint (34-2010-00077415)
1 2 3 Introduction Background A. B. 6 Standard of Review Argument I. 8 Q .„ 11 II.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 Factual background Procedural history 2 2 4 5 6 The court should sustain the demurrer because Bamett's requested relief would substantially interfere with the conduct of the election Bamett failed to state a claim for relief because Dunn satisfied the eligibility requirements to run for Secretary of State, and is not disqualified by any omissions in his voter registration form A. Dunn satisfied the state's eligibility requirements to run as a republican candidate for Secretary of State B. 6
.., 14
Bamett failed to allege facts showing that Dunn's omission of prior registration information invalidated his Califomia voter registration form III. The court should sustain defendants' demurrer as to Bamett's breach of fiduciary duty claims because defendants fulfilled all duties in ensuring that Dunn's candidacy complied with election laws A. Bowen did not breach any duty to Bamett in verifying Dimn's eligibility for candidacy B. Brovm did not breach any duty owed to Bamett, because, as Attomey General, he had no statutory duty to enforce election laws The court should sustain demurrer on Bamett's seventh cause of action for unjust enrichment because she has not alleged facts supporting any ofher underlying claims The court should deny Bamett any further leave to amend her complaint because she cannot state a claim for relief.
12 12 13 14 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Conclusion rv.
Memorandum of Pomts and Authonties m Support of Demurrer to Plaintiffs Complamt (34-2010-00077415)
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 CaUth 826 Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638 Blake v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311 Cantu V. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857 Chambers v. Ashley (1939) 33 Cal.App.2d 390 Cooke V. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 401 Friedland v. City of Long Beach (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 835 Gentry v. eBay, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 816 GulfIns. Co. V. TIG Ins. Co. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 422
6,14 6 2
Minsky V. City of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 113 Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 CaUth 634 Stracke v. Farquar (1942) 20 Cal.2d 82
Code Civ. Proc, § 430.10, subd. (e) Code Civ. Proc, § 430.30, subd. (a) Elec Code, § 2101 Elec Code §§ 2150-54 and 8001 ii
Memorandum of Pomts and Authorities m Support of Demurrer to Plamtiffs Complamt (34-2010-00077415)
Elec Code, §§ 2150, 2153-54 Elec Code §§ 2150,2153, and 2154 Elec Code, § 2150, subd. (a)(10) Elec Code § 2153 Elec Code, § 2153, subd. (c) Elec Code § 5100 Elec. Code § 8001
11 5 10 10 11 9,10 passim 3, 10 " . 9 8 12 7,12 6 .' 6, 8 2 2 2 .' 12,13
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Cal. Const., art II, § 2.5 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Elec Code § 8001(b) Elec Code § 8001, subd. (a) Elec Code § 8001, subd. (a) Elec Code §§ 8070, 8082 Elec Code § 8120 Elec Code § 13314, subd. (a)(1) Elec Code § 13314, subd. (a)(2)(B) Evid. Code § 452 Evid. Code § 452, subd. (c) Fla. Stat. § 98.065, subd. (4)(c) Gov. Code § 12172.5
Memorandum of Pomts and Authonties m Support of Demun-er to Plamtiffs Complamt (34-2010-00077415)
INTRODUCTION In her First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Pamela Bamett seeks an order to remove Damon Dunn from the General Election ballot for Califomia Secretary of State. But Bamett's claim is based on her unsupported and erroneous contentions that Durm has not been affiliated with the Republican Party for a sufficient amount oftime before declaring his candidacy, and that Dunn did not complete the prior registration section when registering to vote in Califomia in March 2009. Bamett also seeks to remove Secretary of State Debra Bowen and Attomey General Edmund G. Brown Jr. from the General Election ballot, claiming that they breached their fiduciary duties to Bamett by not disqualifying Dunn as a candidate for Secretary of State. The Court should sustain Defendants Brown and Bowen's demurrer without leave to amend. The issuance of Bamett's requested relief—orders to remove Dunn, Bowen, and Brown from the General Election ballot—^would substantially interfere wdth the November 2010 election. The primary election ended on June 8,2010, the parties have nominated candidates for the Secretary of State and Govemor races, and the state's voters will elect a Secretary of State and Govemor in the November 2, 2010 General Election. Bamett's requested relief, therefore, would result in the nullification of votes cast for Dunn, Bowen, and Brown. The Court should also sustain the demurrer because Dunn properly qualified as an eligible candidate for the Republican nomination for Secretary of State. Before declaring his candidacy, Dunn needed to have been affiliated with the Califomia Republican party for at least three months, and not affiliated with any other qualified Califomia party for at least twelve months. Dunn cleared both of these requirements. He registered as a Republican nearly twelve months before declaring his candidacy for Secretary of State in March 2010. And Dunn's prior registration in the Florida Democratic Party did not disqualify his candidacy because it expired five years before he declared his candidacy, and the Florida Democratic Party is not a qualified political party in Califomia. Defendants are also entitled to dismissal because Bamett's complaint fails to state any facts showing that Defendants breached their duties in the processing of Dunn's declaration for 1
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Demurrer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (34-2010-00077415)
candidacy. The Secretary of State fulfilled her duties by not only presenting Dunn as one ofthe certified candidates for Secretary of State, but also confirming Dunn's eligibility after Bamett had requested an investigation. As Attomey General, Brown has no statutory duty to investigate Dunn's eligibility, especially when the Secretary of State has not found any reason to refer the matter to the Attomey General. And Bamett's,complaint fails to raise any facts showing that any ofthe defendants intentionally concealed or misrepresented information regarding Dunn's eligibility to run for Secretary of State. For these reasons, the Court should sustain Defendants' demurrer. In sustaining this demurrer, the Court should also deny Bamett any further leave to amend her complaint. Bamett has exercised her right to amend her complaint once before answering Defendants' initial demurrer. But even in her First Amended Complaint, Bamett has still failed to allege any facts stating a claim for relief Because Bamett carmot allege any facts showing that the Defendants are liable, the Court'should deny her leave to amend her complaint yet again, and should close this matter. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background.
Damon Durm is the Republican candidate for Califomia Secretary of State. (Req. for Judicial Notice, Ex. 1, 6.)' 19 In 1999, Dunn registered to vote in Florida and stated his affiliation with the Democratic 20 Party. (First Amended Compl. (FAC), Exh. D.) Under Florida law, a resident is placed on the 21 inactive voter list when he or she does not respond to a mailed address confirmation sent by the 22 23 24 25 26 27
county supervisor of elections. (Fla. Stat. § 98.065, subd. (4)(c).) The voter is then removed from the statewide voter registration system ifhe or she does not vote for two consecutive federal elections, and fails to update his or her voter registration information. (Ibid.) ' The official acts ofthe legislative, executive, and judicial departments ofany state of the United States may be judicially noticed. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (c).) (See Cooke v Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 401, 416 [records ofa coimty are properly noticed under Evid. Code § 452 (official acts ofthe state), since counties are legal subdivisions ofthe state].)
2 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Demurrer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (34-2010-00077415)
In March 2002, the Duval County, Florida Supervisor of Elections converted Duim's voting status to inactive because Dunn did not have any voting history, and did not respond to mail sent to his Jacksonville residence. (Req. for Judicial Notice, Exh. 2.) Dunn had no further activity on his Florida voting record, and on June 6, 2005, the Duval County Elections Supervisor converted Dunn to an ineligible voter in Florida, thus requiring Dunn to reregister ifhe wanted to vote in Florida. (Req. for Judicial Notice, Ex. 2.) On March 13, 2009, Durm registered to vote in Califomia and stated his affiliation with the Republican Party. (FAC, Exh. A.) On March 10,2010, Dunn declared his candidacy for the Republican nomination for Califomia Secretary of State. (Req. for Judicial Notice, Exh. 1.) As part of his Declaration of Candidacy, the Orange County, Califomia Regisfrar of Voters certified that Durm: (1) had been affiliated with the California Republican Party for at least three months before filing his declaration for candidacy; and (2) was not affiliated with any other political party for twelve months before declaring his candidacy. (Req. for Judicial Notice, Exh. 1.) On March 30, 2010, Jerry Holland, Supervisor of Elections for Duval County, Florida, issued a letter to the Califomia Secretary of State's office stating that Dunn had become ineligible to vote in Florida in June 2005, due to his inactivity and lack of response to mailings from the Office ofthe Supervisor of Elections. (Req. for Judicial Notice, Exh. 2.) On May 12, 2010, the Secretary of State's Office responded to a complaint filed by Bamett regarding Dunn's eligibility. (Req. for Judicial Notice, Exh. 3.)^ In the letter the Secretary of State's Office noted that Dunn's registration as a Democrat in Florida expired in June 2005, and that he was not affiliated with any party when he registered to vote in Califomia in March 2009. ^ In her amended complaint, Bamett incorrectly states that Dunn declared his candidacy on November 5, 2009, when he submitted a'Candidacy Intention Statement. (FAC ^ 29, Exh. B.) As opposed to the Declaration of Candidacy, which includes an affidavit showing the candidate's affiliation with his or her political party, as required under Elections Code § 8001(b), the Candidate Intention Statement is not mandated by Elections Code § 8001. Therefore, Dunn declared his candidacy on March 10, 2010, when he filed the state-mandated Declaration of Candidacy form (Req. for Judicial Notice, Exh. 1), not when he filed the Candidate Intention Statement. ^ The Court'may take judicial notice ofany document published, recorded, or filed by any executive department. (See Aguilar v Atlantic Richfield Co (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 842 n.3 ['"we may take judicial notice ofthe report ofa state executive officer as reflecting an 'official act'"] (citation omitted).) 3
(Req. for Judicial Notice, Exh. 3.) The Secretary of State's Office also noted that there were no criminal sanctions for Dunn's failure to complete the section on prior registration in his voter regisfration card. (Req. for Judicial Notice, Exh. 3.) On June 8, 2010, Califomia completed the Statewide Direct Primary Election. (Req. for Judicial Notice, Exh. 5.) Dunn won the Republican Primary for Califomia Secretary of State, receiving 74.4 percent ofthe state's Republican votes. (Req. for Judicial Notice, Exh. 5.) B. Procedural History.
On May 10, 2010, Bamett filed a complaint against Damon Dunn, Secretary of State Bowen, and Attomey General Brown, alleging that: (1) Bowen violated the Elections Code § 8001 and defrauded the Plaintiff by allowing Dunn to run as a Republican candidate for Secretary of State; and (2) Brown and Bowen both breached their fiduciary duty owed to Plaintiff by not disqualifying Dunn from the election. On June 2, 2010, Bamett filed a petition for writ ofmandate in the Third District Court of Appeal, requesting that the appellate court issue a writ barring Dunn from voting in the June 8, 2010 primary. The court denied Bamett's writ on June 3, 2010 without entertaining opposing briefs or oral argument. On June 2, and again on June 7, 2010, Bamett filed motions in this Court for orders shortening time for a hearing requesting: (1) that Dunn be removed from the primary ballot; and (2) a court order preventing elections officials from counting any ofthe primary votes cast for Dunn. The Court rejected both motions, noting that Bamett failed to show good cause as to why she did not bring these motions earlier. On June 11, 2010, Secretary of State Bowen and Attomey General Brown filed a demurrer to Bamett's complaint. Bamett never responded to the demurrer. Instead, on July 12, 2010, Bamett filed her First Amended Complaint, naming Dunn, Bowen, Brown, and Neal Kelley, the Orange County Regisfrar of Voters, as defendants. Covmsel for Secretary of State Bowen and Attomey General Brown received service ofthe First Amended Complaint on July 15, 2010. Bamett's First Amended Complaint includes the followdng allegations against Defendants Bowen and Brown:
Memorandum of Points and Authorities m Support of Demun-er to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (34-2010-00077415)
1 ^ 3 4
• Second Cause of Action: Secretary of State Bowen spoiled evidence and infringed on PlaintifPs First Amendment rights by allowing Damon Duim to run as a Republican candidate for Secretary of State. (FAC, IJH 43-69.) • Third Cause ofAction: Bowen violated Califomia Election Code §§ 2150, 2153, and 2154 by not seeking Dunn's prior regisfration information when he registered to vote in Califomia. (FAC, HlJ 70-79.) • Fourth Cause ofAction: Bowen and Attomey General Brown acted confrary to public policy by failing to ascertain information regarding Dunn's prior out-of-state voting record. (FAC,^1180-88.) • Fifth Cause ofAction: Bowen acted with undue influence by allowing Durm to proceed with his campaign, even though he violated Califomia Elections Code §§ 2150-54 and 8001. (FAC, IIII 89-100.) • Sixth Cause ofAction: Bowen and Brown breached their fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff by failing to investigate Duim's incomplete voter registration form. (FAC, H^ 101-135.) Seventh Cause ofAction: Bowen and Brovm were unjustly enriched by allowing Dunn's candidacy for Secretary of State. (FAC, f^ 136-37.) As discussed below, none of these causes of action allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief against either Defendant Bowen or Brovm. Therefore, the Court should sustain this demurrer wdthout leave to amend, STANDARD OF REVIEW A demurrer tests the sufficiency ofthe complaint; that is, whether it states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc, § 430.10, subd. (e); Friedland v City of Long Beach (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 835, 841-842.) To make this determination, the trial court must accept as trae all material facts pleaded in the complaint and matters ofwhich it may take judicial notice, but not conclusions of law. (Code Civ. Proc, § 430.30, subd. (a); Moore v Conliffe (1994) 7 CaUth 634, 638.) "[A]ny allegations that are contrary to the law or to a fact of which judicial notice may be taken will be treated as a nullity." (GulfIns Co v TIG Ins. Co (2001) 86 Cal.App.4tii 422, 429.) A party may not avoid demurrer by suppressing facts, including those that are judicially
11 12 13 14 15 16 ^^ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
noticeable, which prove the pleaded facts false. (Cantu v Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 877.) Where the complaint's allegations or judicially noticeable facts reveal the existence ofan affirmative defense, the plaintiff must allege specific facts that avoid the apparent defense. (Gentry v. eBay, Inc (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 816, 824.) Absent such allegations, the complaint is subject to demurrer for failure to state a cause of action. (Ibid) ARGUMENT
I. T H E COURT SHOULD SUSTAIN THE DEMURRER BECAUSE BARNETT'S REQUESTED RELIEF WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERE WITH THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION.
Actions to remove candidates from the ballot should be denied when they are untimely, moot, or would interfere with the conduct ofthe election. The Califomia Constitution provides that "[a] voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance wdth the laws ofthis State shall have that vote counted." (Cal. Const, art. II, § 2.5.) The Elections Code prevents the issuance or writs that wdll "substantially interfere with the conduct ofthe election." (Elec. Code § 13314, subd. (a)(2)(B).) And courts have denied untimely actions to omit names from the ballot when the election had already begun, or had since ended. (See Stracke v. Farquar (1942) 20 Cal.2d 82 [refusing to grant a petition for a peremptory writ ofmandate to compel the omission ofthe names of seven persons from the ballot because "the ballot already had been printed and distributed to certain voters"]; see also Chambers v Ashley (1939) 33 Cal.App.2d 390, 391 [denying as moot writ to keep the name of a judge off of the primary election ballot since the primary election had already passed].) Here, Bamett's requested relief—^removal of Duim, Bowen and Brown from the general election ballots—is similarly moot, and would greatly interfere with the conduct ofthis election. The June 8 primary election has long passed, and the parties have selected their nominees for '' Bamett brought this action as a complaint, even though a writ ofmandate would have been the more appropriate means for relief (See Elec Code § 13314, subd. (a)(1) [prescribing a writ ofmandate as the sole vehicle for challenging a violation of state election law by an elector].) Since the relief Bamett requests more closely resembles the relief provided through a writ ofmandate, defendants refer to election laws regarding writ relief 6
Memorandum of Points and Authorities m Support of Demurrer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (34-2010-00077415)
Secretary of State and Govemor (Req. for Judicial Notice, Exh. 5, 6.) Moreover, the Secretary of State has begun publishing the general election ballot materials, which list Bowen and Dunn as candidates for Secretary of State, and Brovm as the Democratic Candidate for Govemor. (Req. for Judicial Notice, Ex. 6, 7.) By October 4, the Secretary of State will begin processing vote-bymail applications. (Req. for Judicial Notice, Exh. 7.) Therefore, any attempt to sfrike Durm, Bowen, and Brown from the ballot at this stage ofthe election wdll substantially interfere wdth the general election, and result in the nullification of votes cast for all three of these candidates during the primary and general elections. For this reason, the Court should deny Bamett's request for relief Moreover, Bamett unreasonably delayed in filing the initial complaint imtil May 10,2010, only 29 days before the primary election. (Compl. p. 1; Req. for Judicial Notice, Ex. 1.) And she did not file the First Amended Complaint until July 12,2010, well after the primary election. (FAC, p. 1.) Bamett relies solely on the Dunn's Florida and Califomia voter registration forms, and Candidate Intention Statements as evidence that Dunn failed to meet the eligibility requirements under Elections Code § 8001. (FAC, Exhs. A, B, D.) Dunnfiled the last of these forms—the Candidate Intention Statement—in November 2009—well before April 1, 2010, when Bowen submitted Duim's name as among the certified candidates for Secretary of State. (FAC, Exh. B; Req. for Judicial Notice, Exh. 4; Elec. Code § 8120.) Bamett could have brought this legal challenge before the Secretary of State submitted the certified list of candidates. She could have also brought this challenge before persons in the military and overseas began voting in the primary election (April 9, 2010), and before counties began mailing sample ballots for the primary election (April 29, 2010). (Req. for Judicial Notice, Ex. 4.) But Bamett did not file her initial complaint until well after these critical election events had already taken place. In her amended complaint, Bamett claims that she brought the lawsuit "immediately after realizing that the Secretary of State was going to fail to act on her fraud complaint" against Dunn. (FAC, ^ 13.) Bamett, however, did not contact the Secretary of State's office about her complaint against Dunn until May 3, 2010, when she faxed a letter to the Secretary of State's office. (FAC, 7
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Demuner to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (34-2010-00077415)
Exh. J.) On May 12, 2010, the Secretary of State's responded to Bamett's faxed inquiry regarding Dunn's ehgibility. (Req. for Judicial Notice, Exh. 3.) Bamett does not allege that the Secretary of State delayed in responding to Bamett's inquiry, or that the Secretary of State prevented Bamett from raising her complaint in this Court before May 10, 2010. And Bamett does not state why the filing ofher claim with the Secretary of State prevented her from filing a similar claim in this Court at the same time. Bamett's justification ofher delay, therefore, lacks any merit. The lateness of Bamett's petition is particularly egregious because the primary election ended on June 8, 2010. Any decision at this time that affects the eligibility of Durm, Bowen, and Brown to be on the general election ballots would nullify the primary election votes cast for these candidates—a result that violates the Califomia Constitution's specific provision requiring the counting of every lawfiilly cast vote, and would result in the substantial interference with the conduct ofthe election. (Cal. Const, art. II, § 2.5; Elec. Code § 13314, subd. (a)(2)(B).) For tiiis reason, the Court should deny Bamett's request relief, and sustain this demurrer without leave to amend.
II. BARNETT FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM FOR RELIEF BECAUSE DUNN SATISFIED THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO RUN FOR SECRETARY OF STATE, AND IS NOT DISQUALIFIED BY ANY OMISSIONS IN H I S VOTER REGISTRATION FORM.
Dunn Satisfied the State's Eligibility Requirements to Run as a Republican Candidate for Secretary of State.
Under Califomia Elections Code, a candidate for a partisan office cannot file a declaration for candidacy unless: (1) he has shovm by affidavit to be affiliated wdth the political party for at least three months before presenting his declaration of candidacy for that party's nomination; and (2) he has not been registered as affiliated with another "qualified political party" within twelve months immediately prior to the declaration. (Elec. Code § 8001, subd. (a).) Here, the Court should sustain the demurrer because Dunn satisfied the Election Code's
25 requirements before filing his declaration for candidacy as Secretary of State. First, Dunn 26 satisfied the three-month requirement because he registered with the Republican Party on March 27 13, 2009, nearly twelve months before he declared his candidacy. (FAC, Exh. A; Req. for 28 8
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Demuner to Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint (34-2010-00077415)
Judicial Notice, Exh. 1.) And second, Dunn was not a member of any other qualified political party for the twelve months preceding his declaration of candidacy. (FAC, Exh. A; Req. for Judicial Notice, Exh. 1.) In her First Amended Complaint, Bamett presents no facts (or even allegations) that Dunn was a member ofany other political party for the twelve month period before March 2010, when he declared his candidacy for Secretary of State. In her Second Cause ofAction, Bamett alleges that Bowen spoiled evidence and violated her First Amendment Rights by not publicizing Dimn's prior voter registration in Florida and Texas.^ (FAC, Tif 57, 61, 67, Exh. Jl). And in her Fourth Cause ofAction, Bamett contends that Secretary of State Bowen and Attomey General Brovm acted contrary to public policy because they did not ascertain information regarding Dunn's prior out-of-state voting record. (FAC, §§ 80-88.) These claims lack any merit because Duim was not registered with any other political party within twelve months before declaring his candidacy. Bamett fails to allege any facts showing that Dunn had active voter registrations in either of these states, or in any other jurisdiction, at any time during twelve months prior to his declaration of candidacy. To the contrary, all available records show that Dimn's only other political affiliation—^with the Florida Democratic Party—expired in 2005. (Req. for Judicial Notice, Exh. 2.) So Dunn satisfied the candidacy eligibility requirements outlined in Elections Code § 8001, subdivision (a). Secretary of State Bowen and Attomey General Brovm, therefore, did not violate the Election Code, PlaintifFs First Amendment rights, or public policy by allowing Dunn's candidacy to proceed. For this reason, the Court should sustain Defendants' demurrer as to Bamett's Second and Fourth Causes ofAction without leave to amend. Moreover, Duim's past affiliation with the Florida Democratic Party could not have disqualified his candidacy because the Florida Democratic Party is not a "qualified political party" as defined under the Califomia Elections Code. Elections Code § 5100 defines a
^ To support her claim that Dunn was registered to vote in Texas, Bamett presents what appears to be an investigation report from an online service stating that Dunn had an inactive voter registration in Texas in December 2001. (FAC, Exh. Jl.) 9
"qualified political party" as a party that fulfills any ofthe followdng conditions related to California elections: (1) (2) the party polled at least 2 percent ofthe vote in the last gubematorial election; the total number of voters registered with the party on or before the 135th day before the election equals at least 1 percent ofthe entire vote in the last gubematorial election; or the party filed a petition with the Secretary of State, on or before the 135th day before the primary, with signatures of voters equal to 10 percent ofthe ofthe state's entire vote for the previous gubematorial election.
g 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(Elec Code §5100.) The Florida Democratic Party is not a "qualified political party" as defined under Elections Code § 8001(b), because it has not fulfilled any ofthe above noted conditions before the June 8, 2010 primary. Therefore, Duim's past affiliation with that party would not have disqualified his candidacy for Secretary of State under any circumstances. Barnett Failed to Allege Facts Showing that Dunn's Omission of Prior Registration Information Invalidated His California Voter Registration Form. A voter's Califomia regisfration form includes a "prior regisfration portion indicating whether the affiant has been registered at another address, under another name, or as intending to affiliate with another party." (Elec. Code, § 2150, subd. (a)(10).) "Ifthe affiant has been so registered, he or she shall give an additional statement giving that address, name, or party." (Ibid.) Bamett's Third and Fifth Causes ofAction hinge on the theory that Secretary of State Bowen should have disqualified Dunn's candidacy because he left blank the section in his voter registration that calls for prior registration information. (FAC, Yi 10-19, 89-100, Exh. A.) To support her argument, Bamett cites Elections Code § 2153, which identifies steps that a county elections official should generally take to fill in blank spaces in the voting registration form:
Iftiie affidavit does not contain all ofthe information required, and the county elections official is not able to collect the missing information by telephone, but the mailing address ofthe affiant is legible, the coimty elections official shall inform the affiant ofthe reason for rejection and shall send to the affiant a new Califomia Voter Registration Form. (Elec Code, §2153, subd. (c).)
Bamett's allegations hinge on an interpretation ofthe Elections Code that requires nullification of voter registration if a voter does not fill out the voter registration section ofthe form. This hypertechnical constraction lacks any legal support and runs confrary to the Election Code's basic requirements for voter eligibility: (1) that the voter is a United States citizen, and a (2) Califomia resident; (3) that the voter is not in prison or on parole for a felony conviction; and (4) that the voter is at least 18 years ofage. (Elec. Code, § 2101.) Dunn's omission of information regarding his prior regisfration touches on none of these requirements, and therefore, does not provide sufficient justification for nullifying his voting regisfration. At most, information regarding Dunn's prior registration goes toward his eligibility for running for office. (Elec. Code, § 8001.) Since the facts on record show that Dunn has satisfied the affiliation requirements to run as a Republican candidate for Secretary of State, his omission of information in his voter regisfration record—and Bowen's decision not to disqualify him on the basis of that omission—does not amount to any election law violation. Moreover, there this no law imposing a duty on the Secretary of State to nullify an elector's voter registiation form because he did not complete the section on prior registiation. The statutes Bamett relies on do not require disqualification if a voter does not complete the prior regisfration section, nor do they impose any duty on the Secretary of State to take any action against the voter. (Elec. Code, §§2150, 2153-54.) Without such an affirmative duty, Bamett cannot allege that the Secretary of State violated the Election Code or acted with undue influence in allowing Dunn's campaign to proceed. The demurrer should also be sustained because it appears Dunn correctly left the priorregistration box blank. Line 16 ofthe voter regisfration form completed by Dunn states: "Ifyou were registered to vote before, fill out below." (FAC, Exh. A.) Bamett has not presented any 11
facts showing that Dunn was previously registered to vote in Califomia before March 2009. Without any record of prior registration in Califomia, Dunn did not need to complete this section. And since Dunn was not a member of any qualified political party when registering to vote in March 2009, he was not concealing any information that would give Bowen, or any govemment official, cause to disqualify his candidacy for Secretary of State. For these reasons, the Court should sustain this demurrer as to Bamett's Third and Fifth Causes ofAction without leave to amend.
III. THE COURT SHOULD SUSTAIN DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER AS TO BARNETT'S BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS BECAUSE DEFENDANTS FULFILLED A L L DUTIES IN ENSURING THAT DUNN'S CANDIDACY COMPLIED WITH ELECTION LAWS.
Bowen Did Not Breach Any Duty to Barnett in Verifying Dunn's Eligibility for Candidacy.
As the chief elections officer ofthe state, the "Secretary of State shall see that elections are efficientiy conducted and that state election laws are enforced." (Gov. Code § 12172.5.) To determine if there has been any violation of election laws, the Secretary of State may examine ballots, vote-counting computer programs, "and any other records of elections officials." (Ibid.) If the Secretary of State finds that any election laws are not being enforced, he or she "shall call the violation to the attention ofthe district attomey ofthe county or to the Attomey General." (Ibid.) With respect to the determination of candidate eligibility, the Secretary of State is responsible for: (1) filing nomination documents received from the county elections officials (Elections Code §§ 8070, 8082); and (2) tiansmitting to each county elections official a certified list of candidates eligible for the direct primary. (Elec. Code § 8120.) In her Sixth Cause ofAction, Bamett claims that Secretary of State Bowen breached her
24 fiduciary duties by not disqualifying Dunn as a candidate for Secretary of State. (FAC, §§ 10125 26 27 28 30.) Bamett's claim however, is based on the false premise that Dunn's omission of prior registiation on his voting registration form disqualified his candidacy. (FAC, Tif 105, 112-15.) As noted above, Dunn's omission does not invalidate his voting eligibility, and it does not give 12
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Demuner to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (134-2010-00077415)
1 rise to a duty for Bowen to disqualify his candidacy. Because Bamett has not alleged any facts to 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 create a duty, she cannot allege that Bowen breached any fiduciary duty in not disqualifying Dunn from the race. For this reason, the Court should sustain the demurrer as to Bamett's Sixth Cause of Action. Confrary to Bamett's allegations, Bowen has fully executed her obligation to enforce the election laws, by verifying Dunn's candidacy after Orange County elections officials certified his eligibility. (Req. for Judicial Notice, Exh. 1.) In a letter response to Bamett's claims against Dunn's candidacy, the Secretary of State's office confirmed that Dunn met the affiliation requirements under Elections Code § 8001. (Req. for Judicial Notice, Exh. 2, 3.) Secretary of State Bowen upheld her statutory duties in ensuring that Dunn's candidacy complied with election laws, and is entitled to dismissal of Bamett's complaint. Bamett also alleges that Bowen defrauded her by "concealing] and enter[ing] false statements into the public record with intention of fraudulently obtaining votes." (FAC, Tif 124.) Bamett does not identify the allegedly false statements made by Bowen. Moreover, the Secretary of State's office investigated the impact of Dunn's failure to list his prior registiation in Florida, and found no intentional misconduct. (Req. for Judicial Notice, Ex. 3.) Bamett's fraud claim lacks any legal or factual merit. For this reason, the Court should sustain Defendants' demurrer without leave to amend. B. Brown Did Not Breach Any Duty Owed to Barnett, Because, as Attorney General, He Had No Statutory Duty to Enforce Election Laws.
In her Sixth Cause ofAction, Bamett also alleges that Attomey General Brown breached his fiduciary duties by not disqualifying Dunn as a candidate due to his incomplete voter regisfration form. (FAC, ff 81-83, 103.) The Attomey General, however, has no duty to intervene in an election law claim, unless the Secretary of State finds evidence of an election law violation, and refers the matter to the Attomey General. (Gov. Code § 12172.5; see Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638, 650 [stating that tiie Secretary of State, not tiie Attomey General, is "the official charged with ensuring proper application ofthe state's elections laws"].) 13
Memorandum of Pomts and Authorities m Support of Demuner to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (34-2010-00077415)
Here, there was no evidence of any election law violation, so the Secretary of State had no need to refer the matter to the Attomey General. The Attomey General, therefore, had no duty to investigate Bamett's claims against Dunn, and is therefore entitled to dismissal ofthis matter.
IV. THE COURT SHOULD SUSTAIN DEMURRER ON BARNETT'S SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT BECAUSE SHE HAS N O T ALLEGED FACTS SUPPORTING ANY OF H E R UNDERLYING CLAIMS.
Bamett also alleges that Defendants Bowen and Brown were unjustly enriched as a result of their actions in allowing Dunn's candidacy to proceed. (FAC, ff 136-37.) Bamett's claim however, relies solely on the allegations that defendants' actions constitute common law violations "for unjust enrichment to damage Plaintiff' for an undisclosed amount. (FAC, f 137.) As noted above, Bamett has failed to present any allegations sufficient for stating a cause of action against either Bowen or Brown. She therefore cannot state a claim that Bowen or Brown are unjustly enriched by their actions. For this reason, the Court should sustain defendants' demurrer as to Bamett's Seventh Cause ofAction
V. THE COURT SHOULD DENY BARNETT ANY FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND H E R COMPLAINT BECAUSE SHE CANNOT STATE A CLAIM FOR RELIEF.
After a demurrer has been fully argued, the Court can sustain the demurrer, but should allow leave to amend if "there is a reasonable possibility that a defect in the complaint can be cured by amendment or that the pleading liberally constraed can state a cause of action." (Minsky V City ofLos Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 113,118.) The Court, however, may sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is no "reasonable possibility" that the complaint's defect can be cured by amendment. (Blake v i<:/rwa« (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) "[A] tiial court does not abuse its discretion when it sustains a demurrer without leave to amend if either (a) the facts and the nature ofthe claims are clear and no liability exists, or (b) it is probable from the nature ofthe defects and previous unsuccessfiil attempts to plead that the plaintiff cannot state a claim." (Cantu V Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 890.) Here, the Court should sustain this demurrer without granting Bamett any further leave to amend her complaint. Bamett has already exercised her right to amend her complaint once, after defendants filed their initial demurrer. But, in both filed complaints, Bamett has failed to allege 14
any claim for relief Her allegations are based on misinterpretations of California's and Florida's law. Moreover, Bamett has failed to provide any facts supporting her claims. To the confrary, all available facts show that: (1) Dunn is eligible to run as the Republican candidate for Secretary of State; (2) Secretary of State Bowen investigated and confirmed Dunn's eligibility (Req. for Judicial Notice, Exh. 2, 3); and (3) Attomey General Brovm has no duty to investigate Dunn's eligibility, because there is no evidence showing he violated any election laws. None of Bamett's allegations show liability among any ofthe defendants. Moreover, Bamett has failed in repeated attempts to state a claim for relief For these reasons, the Court should deny leave to amend the complaint. CONCLUSION Bamett's late request for relief—which includes removal of Dunn, Bowen, and Brovm from the November 2010 ballot—^would interfere wdth the ongoing election process. Moreover, the complaint and judicially noticed documents fail to show that Dunn violated any election laws in declaring his candidacy for Secretary of State, or that Secretary of State Bowen breached any of her duties in certifying his candidacy. Bamett's complaint also fails to allege that Attomey General Brovm had any duty to intervene in Duim's declaration for candidacy. For these reasons, defendants request that the Court sustain their demurrer without leave to amend, and dismiss this action. Dated: August 13, 2010 Respectfiilly Submitted,
EDMUND G. BROWN JR. '
SA2010101350 10573480.doc
Deputy Attomey General Attorneys for Defendants Edmund G Brown J r , California Attorney General, and Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Demuner to Plamtiffs First Amended Complaint (34-2010-00077415)
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulBARNETT v DUNN (STATE CASE CALI) - Memorandum of Points and Authorities - DefaultDMS by Jack RyanEmbedDownloadDescription8/16/2010 11:21 AM 34-2010-00077415-CU-MC-GDS	Memorandum of Points and Authorities8/16/2010 11:21 AM 34-2010-00077415-CU-MC-GDS	Memorandum of Points and AuthoritiesInterests: Types, Research, LawRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedBARNETT v DUNN (STATE CASE CALI) - Request for Judicial Notice - DefaultDMSby Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN, et al. - Request for Judicial Notice - DefaultDMSby Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN, et al. - Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint - DefaultDMSby Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN, et al. - Demurrer - DefaultDMSby Jack RyanCertification of Damon Dunn's Fraud as well as the SOS's fraud?by Pamela BarnettBARNETT v DUNN (STATE CASE CALI) - Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer 1st Amended Complaint - DefaultDMSby Jack RyanBARNETT V DUNN (STATE CASE CALI) - DEFENDANTS BOWEN AND BROWN'S INDEX OF NON-CALIFORNIA AUTHORITY WITH ATTACHMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER - DefaultDMSby Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN, et al. (STATE COURT - CALI) - Notice to Filing Party - DefaultDMSby Jack RyanBarnett Dunn Motion for Reconsiderationby raicha98BARNETT v DUNN, et al. - Official Notice of Ex Parte Hearing 32218088by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN, et al. - First Amended Complaint - DefaultDMSby Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN, et al. - COMPLAINT - 31177742 by Jack RyanBarnett Dunn Order on Reconsideratoinby raicha98BARNETT v DUNN (STATE COURT - CALI) - Affidavit of Personal Service - 2 - DefaultDMSby Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (STATE COURT - CALI) - Affidavit of Personal Service - 1 - DefaultDMSby Jack RyanBarnett Dunn Order on Ex Parteby raicha98BARNETT|KEYES v OBAMA (NINTH CIRCUIT) - Summary of Oral Argument 5-2-11by Jack RyanBarnett Response to erroneous order from Judge Chang (draft)by Pamela BarnettBARNETT v DUNN, et al. - General Denial - DefaultDMSby Jack RyanDunn Ex Parte App and Orderby Pamela BarnettBARNETT v OBAMA (APPEAL - 9th CIRCUIT) - 18 - (KREEP) Appellants' Opening Brief - 18 - Transport Roomby Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN, et al. (STATE COURT CALI) - Correspondence - DefaultDMSby Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN - 32683631 Dunn Ex Parte Hearing Exhibits 1 3 4by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN - Notice of Errata - DefaultDMSby Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN - Special Appearance Letter - DefaultDMSby Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN, et al. (STATE COURT CALI) - Declaration Other - DefaultDMSby Jack RyanBarnett-v-Dunn-OSC-MOLby David-CrockettLucas Daniel Smith 10.12.09 new Declaration SACV09-00082-DOC (Anx) by Lucas Daniel SmithSimilar to BARNETT v DUNN (STATE CASE CALI) - Memorandum of Points and Authorities - DefaultDMSBARNETT v DUNN (STATE CASE CALI) - Request for Judicial Notice - DefaultDMSBARNETT v DUNN, et al. - Request for Judicial Notice - DefaultDMSBARNETT v DUNN, et al. - Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint - DefaultDMSBARNETT v DUNN, et al. - Demurrer - DefaultDMSCertification of Damon Dunn's Fraud as well as the SOS's fraud?BARNETT v DUNN (STATE CASE CALI) - Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer 1st Amended Complaint - DefaultDMSBARNETT V DUNN (STATE CASE CALI) - DEFENDANTS BOWEN AND BROWN'S INDEX OF NON-CALIFORNIA AUTHORITY WITH ATTACHMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER - DefaultDMSBARNETT v DUNN, et al. (STATE COURT - CALI) - Notice to Filing Party - DefaultDMSBarnett Dunn Motion for ReconsiderationBARNETT v DUNN, et al. - Official Notice of Ex Parte Hearing 32218088BARNETT v DUNN, et al. - First Amended Complaint - DefaultDMSBARNETT v DUNN, et al. - COMPLAINT - 31177742 Barnett Dunn Order on ReconsideratoinBARNETT v DUNN (STATE COURT - CALI) - Affidavit of Personal Service - 2 - DefaultDMSBARNETT v DUNN (STATE COURT - CALI) - Affidavit of Personal Service - 1 - DefaultDMSBarnett Dunn Order on Ex ParteBARNETT|KEYES v OBAMA (NINTH CIRCUIT) - Summary of Oral Argument 5-2-11Barnett Response to erroneous order from Judge Chang (draft)BARNETT v DUNN, et al. - General Denial - DefaultDMSDunn Ex Parte App and OrderBARNETT v OBAMA (APPEAL - 9th CIRCUIT) - 18 - (KREEP) Appellants' Opening Brief - 18 - Transport RoomBARNETT v DUNN, et al. (STATE COURT CALI) - Correspondence - DefaultDMSBARNETT v DUNN - 32683631 Dunn Ex Parte Hearing Exhibits 1 3 4BARNETT v DUNN - Notice of Errata - DefaultDMSBARNETT v DUNN - Special Appearance Letter - DefaultDMSBARNETT v DUNN, et al. (STATE COURT CALI) - Declaration Other - DefaultDMSBarnett-v-Dunn-OSC-MOLLucas Daniel Smith 10.12.09 new Declaration SACV09-00082-DOC (Anx) KEYES|BARNETT v OBAMA (APPEAL) -11 - Orly Letter to Ninth Circuit 3-29-10 - Transport RoomBARNETT v OBAMA (APPEAL - 9TH CIRCUIT - 16-2 - July 13, 2009 Motions Hearing Transcript - Transport RoomBARNETT v DUNN (STATE CASE CALI) - Memorandum of Points and Authorities - DefaultDMS