I have not seen the ruling; however, one basis for denying a request for a preliminary injunction is that the party seeking the injunction has not shown that it is likely to prevail. The earlier temporary order, remember, issued when the City Attorney simply agreed to it.

Gary, the link to court order is in the article. Here is the copy:
Web Link

Finally justice has been served. We worked hard for this and deserve the reward.

This begs the question: why did the city agree to the TRO in the first place?

How do we get a refund for the months of rent paid at the higher rate?

In any event, glad V will roll out immediately, take that you greedy landlords! The people have spoken, can you hear us now?

I am loving this, now I don't have to worry about being priced out of the market and I will benefit significantly when my pay rate rises faster than the controlled rent increases, the best of both worlds, only in America.

Oh great. Read it. I would sum it up this way: The landlord group is not likely to prevail on a legal claim that, if true, would invalidate the measure. So, there is no basis for halting the measure's implementation at this stage of the case. That does not mean the CAA will end up losing the heart of the case in the trial court. Just probably so. Heck, interested persons should read the ruling themselves. It is only two pages. The intervenors should promptly move for summary judgment and summary adjudication of the various issues raised.

Gary,
in your opinion, in the view of TRO that was lifted on 4/5, what is the effective date of the Measure V? Is it 4/5/17? or 12/23/16? This is relevant to the question of rent rates rollback. Is delay due to TRO refundable?

They wasted a lot of money blocking rent control, they should've spend it on renovating and maybe give renters some relief. Their money went down the drain.

Karma to greedy landlords.

This had to be somewhat expected considering the case law.
The real challenge for the tenants organizations will be the time when it gets to the Trump SCOTUS (Gorsuch allies) then it likely going to be ruled unconstitutional.

@measure V is for me calling landlords greedy. And his first post is all about how he gets money back.

Classic.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Congrats Mountain View!

This means low rent increases but also means no community improvements on older properties that desperately need them. Need to replace 40 year old galvanized pipes? Sorry but too much money without any return on the investment. Wait 10 years and watch these properties fall into disrepair but at least the prices will stay steady. The demographic will decline. New properties and old propeties only. No in between. No middle class in Mountain View unless you're willing to live to a slum.

Hi, Rengstorff Park fear-mongering Member -

Au contraire: Santa Monica is a lovely town that has had rent control for decades, and are their rental buildings falling into disrepair? Is that neighborhood going to seed? Hardly. It's absolutely beautiful. Residents can enjoy tranquil stability. Landlords can always charge the market rate to new tenants. And rent increases are above inflation, so no one is exactly losing on their investment. Besides, why do landlords need a guaranteed rate of return? They are already building equity.

Sorry, the fear-mongering about rent control causing slums is just untrue. The only cause of slums is negligent, stingy landlords.

Hi, would someone be able to explain Base Rent in Measure V:

----
Base Rent.
The Base Rent is the reference point from which the
lawful Rent shall be determined and adjusted in accordance with this
Article.
(1) Tenancies commencing on or before October 19, 2015.
The Base Rent for tenancies that commenced on or before October 19, 2015 shall be the Rent in effect on October 19, 2015.
(2) Tenancies commencing after October 19, 2015.
The Base Rent for tenancies that commenced after October 19, 2015 shall be the initial rental rate charged upon initial occupancy, provided that amount is not a violation of this Article or any provision of state law. The term “initial rental rate” means only the amount of Rent actually paid by the Tenant for the initial term of the tenancy.
---

I think a lot of people have been saying "roll back to rents on October 19, 2015", but that is not what I am reading in Measure V. The above language sounds more like if my rent on October 19, 2015, was $2000, then my rent today should be $2000 + the CPI since then (instead of the whopping increase that I had). Is that correct? That to me sounds more fair to landlords, as well as still good for tenants. (Sure wish the base rate had been set at October 19, 2014, instead! I got a nearly 10% increase in rent that year!)

what does this mean for the rollback, Can we begin to pay the October 2015 rates to the landlords starting in May?

or do we need to wait until all the court dust settles?

Who can we contact in city hall ? Why hasn't the MV city website been updated! This is important and they need to stay on top of it

Can anyone provide info on this ?

Answering a post, I do not have an opinion about the effect of the TRO on rent already paid. The attorneys in the case may have thought about it. The December TRO did not address the matter. The charter amendment does not provide for any rebates. It just sets base rent based on the rent at earlier points in time. So, it could well be that the City Attorney's stipulation to the TRO in December has made millions of dollars for landlords at the expense of tenants. The good news is that the City Attorney, Jannie Quinn, was not left to defend the charter amendment approved by voters. Some attorneys stepped up representing intervenors and the judge allowed intervention.

Does this only apply to apartments? I live in a manufactured home in Mountain View. It seems unfair if this only applies to apartments.

I blame Trump.

There was and I assume still is an issue about whether Measure V applies to mobilehome park rents. Contact the tenant group.

I was at the hearing on Tues.

The CAA case was simply a example of "if we cannot dazzle you with our brilliance, we will blind you with (blank)". The CAA presented 58 allegations to the court expecting that the court would have to rule on each separate allegation individually. This was a terrible mistake that in the end was more damaging in their legal argument. In fact the judge declared so in his decision. I do compliment that the City Attorney did a very concise argument against it. And with the teamwork of the lawyers, it looks like they must have done an effective job at dismantling the foundation of the claims of the CAA.

Now, what does this mean? In my opinion, the temporary restraining order precedent is that once it dies, the statutory effect written into the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act is in full force. There is no more legal basis to claim it does not regulate rents as of the date of its established enforcement date which was Dec. 23, 2016. So at the very least, the current tenants that were in their apartments prior to Oct. 2015 are lawfully required to pay that rent as of Jan 1st, 2017.

There is a strong case that the rents paid up to April 4, 2017 now need to be retroactively reset to the rent paid on October, 2015 back to December 23rd, 2016. The rationale is that the suspension was "temporary" and NOT an injunction. Injunctions allow for the suspension of law until the injunction is lifted, a TRO does not from w2hat I have read. That means that for the first 4 months of 2017, the landlords have overcharged the tenants and they are due a refund.

Guidance on rollback from the CAA to its members:


"Measure V is retroactive. It requires that, for tenancies that commenced on or before October 20, 2015, rents be rolled back to the rent that was being charged to the tenant on October 20, 2015. For any tenancy that was established between October 21, 2015 the effective date of Measure V, it requires that the rent be rolled back to the amount the tenant paid at the start of the tenancy. The authors of Measure V have stated they did not intend for landlords to refund rents but simply to “reset” rents to the level charged on October 20, 2015."

To quote from the angry mob's website "Will I get a refund for rent I paid between October 2015 and January 2017 ? No. Measure V was not intended to provide a refund on rent paid before it took effect."

Based on this, the rollback should start 5/1/17 which is the first full month V is effective. It is no fault of the landlords that it only took effect now. The delay is on the city for agreeing to the TRO. Feel free to short pay your rent and see what happens, I think short paying would result in a valid eviction.

The Truth,

Lets address your statements:

"Based on this, the rollback should start 5/1/17 which is the first full month V is effective. It is no fault of the landlords that it only took effect now. The delay is on the city for agreeing to the TRO. Feel free to short pay your rent and see what happens, I think short paying would result in a valid eviction."

In fact it IS the landlord's fault, the landlord's representatives the CAA pushed the TRO down the throat of Mountain View. It was not requested for by Mountain View in any way. So please, do not assume it is anyone elses fault BUT the landlords themselves.

Second you also stated that the letter you discussed states:

"Measure V is retroactive. It requires that, for tenancies that commenced on or before October 20, 2015, rents be rolled back to the rent that was being charged to the tenant on October 20, 2015. For any tenancy that was established between October 21, 2015 the effective date of Measure V, it requires that the rent be rolled back to the amount the tenant paid at the start of the tenancy. The authors of Measure V have stated they did not intend for landlords to refund rents but simply to “reset” rents to the level charged on October 20, 2015."

It does not in fact state there is ANY delay in enforcement of the Measure now that the TRO is dead. It in fact stipulates that "Measure V is retroactive. It requires that, for tenancies that commenced on or before October 20, 2015, rents be rolled back to the rent that was being charged to the tenant on October 20, 2015."

Finally, why would you take any advice from an organisation that has lost 3 out of 3 cases in court this year. The courts have stated that no evidence supports the allegations made at least at this time. To me this is like the blind leading the blind. In fact I have found very few or actually no law case where the CAA has prevailed. But I will point out that I did little research. To me it sounds like your just trying to use this forum to intimidate the Mountain View citizens from requesting what they are now legally entitled to.

This is called "Astroturfing" and it is defined as:

Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by a grassroots participant(s). It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection. The term astroturfing is derived from AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to resemble natural grass, as a play on the word "grassroots". The implication behind the use of the term is that there are no "true" or "natural" grassroots, but rather "fake" or "artificial" support, although some astroturfing operatives defend the practice (see Justification below).

You do know there is currently an army of pro bono lawyers just waiting to have fun putting the legal screws on the landlords that fail to comply with Measure V. They will assist all citizens as long as you request it, they can be contacted as follows:

Law Foundation of Silicon Valley: 408-280-2424,
Bay Area Legal Aid: 408-850-7066,
Asian Law Alliance: 408-287-9710,
Project Sentinel: 650-282-2514

YES EVEN PROJECT SENTINEL MUST NOW ENFORCE THE RENT ROLL BACKS

By the way please read this:

Will I get a refund for rent I paid between October 2015 and January 2017 ? No. Measure V was not intended to provide a refund on rent paid before it took effect.

But NOW it IS in effect and it has been only "restrained" until NOW. Thus the rents from January 2017, till now are subject to the law.

Effective date of V is 4/5/17, the rents will be set back retroactively to Oct 15 levels but only as of effective date (4/5/17)implementation is logically rents due 5/1/17. Sorry "The Business Man" you aren't getting a discount for Jan-Apr rent differential. If you feel so strongly, short pay your May rent for the credit you think you have and call a lawyer once the eviction process starts.

The Truth,

I am in fact drafting a demand that I get my overcharged rent from Dec 23, 2016 to today retroactive refunded. Unless I can hear from a lawyer not affiliated with the CAA or a landlord that claims otherwise, Measure V was only "temporarily restrained". The courts cannot change dates when it comes to the law.

The law clearly stated that it is in effect 10 days after certification of the vote which was December 13th, 2016. The law clearly states that the LAWFUL rent for one like me who has been at my address since 2007 is to be the rent paid in October, 2015.

Please provide any validation that since the TRO is now gone, that the TRO in effect overrode the date of enforcement? Please provide proof that the courts can override the dates of any voter proposition or measure in California?

If you cannot do so, then you're simply making claims without any basis in the FACTS. You historically in the past only represented your opinions to support your interpretation of "The Truth". That is your right under the 1st amendment, but that doesn't mean your opinions are in fact "The Truth"

This seems to be just another attempt to intimidate the public. I am going to call the bluff. I cannot wait to see how this turns out.

When the city agreed to the TRO, V never went into effect. The TRO ended 4/5/17 and V is now in effect. It is as simple as that. Had the city simply challenged the TRO, you would have gotten the roll back 1/1/17, but they didn't and you won't get to have your cake and eat it too. Just be happy that you get it 5/1/17 and that you live in a town with more renters than homeowners and were able to game the system to your benefit at the expense of the rights of a minority group of property owners. Put simplest, you can't claim the benefits of a law until it is in effect, that is reality. Of course your landlord could give into you to be nice, but they are not required to do anything but adjust your rent on 5/1.

With the repeal of Costa Hawkins now dropped for rest of 2017(thanks to the CAA), the folly that is Measure V will be revealed quickly. It won't resolve the housing supply issue, it only grants a win to a select group of lottery winners, many of whom did not need the help in the first place.

Here is my first draft regarding my past rent:

On April 5, 2017, the Santa Clara court denied the preliminary injunction sought by the CAA Attorney and the Intervening Attorney. This means the Temporary Restraining Order has been terminated.

Under section 1702(b)(1) of the CSFRA, tenants who still live in the same apartments they lived in back on October 19, 2015, are entitled to a “rollback” of their rent to their October 2015 levels. I lived in my unit in October 2015, and at that time my rent was $1300.00/month. However I have been paying $2,200./ Month since January.

For that reason, starting in January 2017, I have overpaid my rent because of the Temporary Restraining Order for 4 months to avoid having potential legal and residency problems with you. However now that the temporary restraining order is now terminated, Section 1720 states:


SECTION 1720. MAJORITY APPROVAL, EFFECTIVE DATE, EXECUTION.

This Amendment to the City Charter shall be effective only if approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon and shall go into effect ten (10) days after the vote is declared by the City Council. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute this Article to give evidence of its adoption by the voters.

The fact is that on December 13th, the Certified Santa Clara Registrar of Voters results were adopted by the City Council, thus Section 1720 simply states that the measure is enforceable on December 23, 2016.

Even though the City Attorney stipulated to the TRO, the section 179 prevents the city from altering the CSFRA enforcement date in any way, this section states:

SECTION 1719. CODIFICATION

The City Clerk and the City Attorney shall take all steps necessary to ensure the proper and efficient codification of this Article into the Charter of the City of Mountain View. This authority shall include making any necessary revisions to numbering, revising or substituting any references herein to other provisions of Mountain View or State law, and similar non-substantive items. In exercising this authority, the City Clerk and City Attorney shall not alter the substantive provisions of this Article nor take any action that contradicts express terms and purpose of this Article.

For that reason, since I have now overpaid for my lawful rent by a difference of $900./ month starting on December 23rd, 2016, I am legally entitled to have that money returned to me, I expect a certified check issued in 10 days.

Further I will be paying my October 2015 monthly rent amount: $1,300.00 at the end of the month of April, 2017.

If you have any questions about the rollback, please contact the City’s Housing Division at (650) 903-6379 or email neighborhoods@mountainview.gov. If you have any questions about the amount of rent I am paying for January 2017, please contact me. Thank you.

The Buisness Man,

If you truly felt the money should and will be refunded you would simply pay the old rent less your "refund". But I think you're not quite sure about the "refund" because:
"I am in fact drafting a demand that I get my overcharged rent from Dec 23, 2016 to today retroactive refunded."

which, to me, means you ARE expecting the "refund" to take a while to be paid.

CA Native

My approach is this way because I want to make sure that my demand is rational and does not subject me to any criticism. people like "The Truth" would say that by not paying any rent at all would warrant my eviction or classify me as a Nuisance Tenant. I have never been any problem for my older and my new landlord because I have always complied with my rental agreement, I have paid a late fee, but never NOT paid my rent. Sometimes you simply need to do some things in a certain way as to prevent more serious consequences. If I were to do what you suggest, I would not pay any rent for at least 2 months. Because my refund in larger than 2 months rent now. But that would be considered unreasonable even to me.

If the City Attorney does not apply the law on the date specified in the CSFRA, the Attorney can find itself liable for losses to tenants. I do not believe it will not do so.

That letter is a message in a bottle that won't be answered.

CA Native is spot on correct, if you believe you are owed money, pay no rent in May and send a certified letter to your landlord that it was funded by your "overpayments". Best of luck with that endeavor.

The Truth,

Since it will be sent by certified mail, I have proof of it's delivery. It cannot be "lost at sea"

I will have a record of who received it and the date.

If any landlord acts the way you advise, that landlord will simply find themselves in liability of violating the CSFRA, and the City Attorney will be required to act accordingly.

You sound like this landlord:

Nemat Malek Salehi, who owns Stanford Garden Apartments, was charged with vandalizing his tenants property including shooting out the windshields of their cars with a BB gun.(Web Link

and:

PALO ALTO (CBS SF) — The owner of an East Palo Alto apartment complex and his son are facing charges in connection with what police and prosecutors believe was a plot to target tenants in order to get them to move out of their rent controlled apartments, police said Monday.

Following a lengthy investigation an arrest warrant was issued on Sept. 21 for Saratoga resident Nemat Maleksalehi, landlord of Stanford Garden Apartments at 1735 Woodland Ave., and his son East Palo Alto resident Auria Maleksalehi, according to police.

On numerous occasions tenants who lived in rent controlled units at the complex allegedly had their car windows broken and their personal property damaged, police said.(Web Link

I guess we know what kind of business man you are.

That's out of line Business Man. There is a large difference between thuggery/law breaking and aggressively asserting your rights within the law. The East Palo Alto landlord you cite is not ordinary, he is quite the outlier. The CAA and its legitimate members aggressively assert their rights within the law, just as the tenants coalition did. The tenants coalition won this round, but the litigation is not over by any means.

The Truth,

Is the use of intimidation like you do here just aggressive advocacy?

When you are willing to say anything to prevent those whose legal rights are to take actions, that results in the potential crossing the line from advocacy to crime.

for example:

"Investigators also learned Auria Maleksalehi had allegedly contacted a witness to one of the crimes in an attempt to prevent them from speaking with police."(Web Link

You do realize anytime intimidation is used it is potentially a crime, please look at the following:

What is INTIMIDATION?

In English law. Every person commits a misdemeanor, punishable with a fine or imprisonment, who wrongfully uses violence to OR INTIMIDATES ANY OTHER PERSON, OR HIS WIFE OR CHILDREN, WITH A VIEW TO COMPEL HIM TO ABSTAIN FROM DOING, OR TO DO, ANY ACT WHICH HE HAS A LEGAL RIGHT TO DO, OR ABSTAIN FROM DOING. (St. 38 & 39 Vict, c. 80,)(Web Link

From what I read in this, your actions are crossing the line. Simply put, ASSERTIVE advocacy in my point of view is alway respectful and appropriate, but AGGRESSION is inappropriate.

That is why the current problems with the growing violence in the US involving political activities has simply gotten out of hand. I simply am establishing that the tactics being used in this forum see to be crossing the line.

Can you really state that your behavior doesn't intimidate? All I am doing is discussing what at least now appears to be the best course of action to be granted the legal remedy that was established with the CSFRA.

I am very surprised that the City Attorney made the claim that:

The Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (Section 1702) went into effect on April 5, 2017 including the Rent Roll Back provisions:

The allowable rent for tenants who moved into a covered Rental Unit on or before Oct. 19, 2015 is the rent in effect on Oct.19, 2015.

The allowable rent for tenants who moved into a covered Rental Unit after Oct. 19, 2015 is the rent charged at the commencement of their tenancy.

In accordance with the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act in Section 1707, the Rental Housing Committee will announce the annual general rent adjustment by June 30, 2017. The annual general rent adjustment shall not take effect prior to September 1, 2017.

An agenda item to appoint Members to the Rental Housing Committee is scheduled for the April 18, 2017 City Council meeting. Once appointed, the Committee will commence implementing the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act and begin work to adopt rules and regulations.(Web Link

The Court is not empowered nor the City Attorney to make material changes in the date of enforcement of the law, especially when the "constitutionality" of it remains intact at this time. All I am doing is expressing this information.

Bottom line is your roll back isn't kicking in until 5/1/17 and there is nothing you can do about that. Hopefully you did not have plans for the $3,600 you won't get back. Getting too aggressive with your landlord could backfire on you, I suggest that you be more careful with your unreasonable demands.

The Truth

You stated:

Bottom line is your roll back isn't kicking in until 5/1/17 and there is nothing you can do about that.

That is not correct because the fact is there was no court order issued that stated that the enforcement section of date of CSFRA Section 1720 was determined unconstitutional. The court order that that provision of the law was invalid or modified. The City Attorney was not allowed to make any changes to the CSFRA nor make any agreements that would contradict the text of the Charter Amendment. Thus the date of enforcement of December 23rd, 2016 could not be altered unless there was a court order specifically stating that the court invalidated section 1720.

The fact is that the City Attorney cannot make any changes to the CSFRA due to Section 1719. You forget it was a Charter Amendment, the City Attorney nor the City Council are prohibited from altering the CSFRA. The only way that can be done is by a new election with a new Charter Amendment. I guess you forgot that the City Charter overrides the actions of the City Attorney if the City Attorney act contrary to it.

You also stated that:

Hopefully you did not have plans for the $3,600 you won't get back. Getting too aggressive with your landlord could backfire on you, I suggest that you be more careful with your unreasonable demands.


My letter is not AGGRESSION, it is very clearly ASSERTIVE, because it is only stating what the law entitles me to request. It is not disrespectful, nor unreasonable because it simply applies the current charter the way the charter is written.

You have the opinion that it is unreasonable, but even if it were, the charter simply entitles me to this action. Until the next election where the Charter Amendment is repealed, or the court determines that the CSFRA is unconstitutional, the Mountain View Charter entitles tenants to this course of action.

If I do not receive the refund, I will be able to file a case against the landlord given that the Chart Amendment entitles me to do so under section 1712 it states:

A Landlord or Tenant aggrieved by any action or decision of the Committee may seek
judicial review pursuant to state law and this Article and its implementing regulations. No action or decision by the Committee shall go into effect until any statutory time period for such review has expired.

Thus a small claims case will be filed once the deadline of 10 days expires.

It is NOW a time for the citizens of Mountain View to take ACTION. Not to be vengeful, but to simply be granted relief they a now entitled to as citizens of Mountain View. The political effort succeeded.

It would be interesting to hear an opinion regarding the effective date of the rollbacks from someone other than business man or truth. They apparently will never agree, but this is an important issue that needs a definitive answer for the sake of both tenants and landlords.

Here are the facts from the only source that counts:

Web Link

It is an inconvenient truth for some that effective date is 4/5/17, the effective date can't be denied.

Greg David,

I agree with you 125%. I cannot trust the Mountain View City Attorney because she has been found deficient enough to have the Santa Clara court allow intervention in the case by new attorneys. The Intervention was based on:

Section 387. (Amended by Stats. 1977, Ch. 450.)

Cite as: Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §387.

(b)If any provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene or if the person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property to transaction which is the subject of the action AND THAT PERSON IS SO SITUATED THAT THE DISPOSITION OF THE ACTION MAY AS A PRACTICAL MATTER IMPAIR OR IMPEDE THAT PERSON’S ABILITY TO PROTECT THAT INTEREST, UNLESS THAT PERSON’S INTEREST IS ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED BY EXISTING PARTIES, THE COURT SHALL, UPON TIMELY APPLICATION, PERMIT THAT PERSON TO INTERVENE.( Web Link

Thus the “opinion” of the city attorney is suspect. The fact was the City Attorney was not interested in defending the CSFRA from the beginning and has done so against her particular political interests in my opinion.

The simple truth is without the intervention, the City Attorney would have been able to continue to argue the case INADEQUATELY. So I agree with you that an independent attorney must provide some advice in this matter.

I concede that I am not a lawyer, but I try to do good homework in this matter. If one looks at the California Civil Procedure texts, there is never been a Temporary Restraining Order that rewrites a Charter Amendment. All I ask is that someone provide a case that establishes that even if a TRO is stipulated, that it in fact rewrites the Charter Amendment. From what I observe, the only thing it can do is "temporarily restrain action”. Once a TRO expires AND NO ORDER IS MADE BY A COURT TO REWRITE THE CHARTER AMENDMENT, the original date of enforcement is restored.

The Truth,

As stated above, the City Attorney in this case was found inadequately representing the interests of the citizens of Mountain View. Until I can get an independent lawyer not associated with either the City, the CAA, nor the intervenors that in fact has either a statutory or common law to state that the date of enforcement was ordered delayed by the court, I simply will not agree with your point of view.

I beg the Mountain View Voice to find an independent attorney and write a story with the results of that discussion.

Gary, is it possible/feasible to move the court to explicitly set the effective date of Measure V to the original 12/23/2016? Which party is best positioned to file such a motion?

Your best bet here is getting Elon Musk to build a time machine for you to go back and change the TRO. It happened and it is reality.

Stop clinging to false hope and move on. You are getting the roll back for sure 5/1, along with benefits of ownership despite not taking any risk, you may be able to get a prorated credit for April, be happy you won (for now).

Going a step further, one can consider restitution for the period from 12/23/2016 to 4/5/2017 with *interest*. A class action-type motion would allow some economy of scale.

An interesting question might be as to the interest rate:

- constitutional interest rate is 7 percent under article XV, section 1 of the California Constitution." (Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 543, 573)

- statutory post-judgment interest rate of 10 percent. (CCP 685.010)

An interesting discussion of this could be found in: Cussler v. Cruisader Entertainment (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 356, 369, albeit related to post-appeal restitution.

The Truth,

You stated:


Your best bet here is getting Elon Musk to build a time machine for you to go back and change the TRO. It happened and it is reality.

Stop clinging to false hope and move on. You are getting the roll back for sure 5/1, along with benefits of ownership despite not taking any risk, you may be able to get a prorated credit for April, be happy you won (for now).

I still have respectfully requested you answer the questions:

All I ask is that someone provide a case that establishes that even if a TRO is stipulated, that it in fact rewrites the Charter Amendment.

And:

As stated above, the City Attorney in this case was found inadequately representing the interests of the citizens of Mountain View. Until I can get an independent lawyer not associated with either the City, the CAA, nor the intervenors that in fact has either a statutory or common law to state that the date of enforcement was ordered delayed by the court.

From what I observe, the only thing it can do is "temporarily restrain action”. Once a TRO expires AND NO ORDER IS MADE BY A COURT TO REWRITE THE CHARTER AMENDMENT, the original date of enforcement is restored.

Simply saying your opinion over and over again doesn't substantiate it. Please I am actually begging you to demonstrate where your interpretation of the situation is valid?

SAMA,

THe court ruled that:

"This statute provides for restitution of assets collected pursuant to an erroneous judgment subsequently reversed on appeal.   Finally, we must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Crusader costs of suit.   We shall conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the order."

I think your observation might be this. Since the stipulated TRO was in fact not validated by the court's denial of the preliminary injunction, it is equivalent to a reversal of of a lower court decision. I think this is on the right track, but I do not know enough. It appears that the City Attorney of Mountain View took actions that simply never have occurred before in the State of California.

The most important question is when does legal negligence or malpractice by an Governmental Attorney rise to the point of City Liability. If in fact my observation is correct, does the City Attorney now have to defend themselves for signing an overarching stipulation that has been at least at this time been proven to have been unwarranted via the denial of the preliminary injunction?

Especially when there is explicit language stating that the Charter Amendment must be established as enforceable on December 23rd, 2016 and explicit language prohibiting the City Attorney from acting contrary to the City Charter in section 1719. In this regard, if my observation is correct and a retroactive refund is required, the landlords could try to argue that the City Attorney misled them regarding what discretion the City Attorney had.

What started out as a political initiative that succeeded against the wishes of the city government, is due to a comedy of errors, becoming what could be considered the worst example of poor judgement and actions as a result. It is a critical mass state where one action causes more a destructive effect that becomes the cause of another level of destructive effects, and so on.

How in the world in this super intelligent city, did we get into this state?