Update: Brannon Suit Hearing March 2

19 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  kamm on December 16 at 11:50 a.m.

  There is an avenue to address voting results in a tight race, isn’t there? Was there a recount? What’s the ‘sour grapes’ issue then?

  Let’s get him some big boy panties to put on and let’s tell him to get over it!

• 

  TheGookinSquad on December 16 at 11:57 a.m.

  The hearing isn’t scheduled until March. The wheels of justice turn slow. We wonder how this will impact Thursday’s meeting between the city and Starr Kelso.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 16 at 12:00 p.m.

  Good call by Gridley although it seems counter intuitive to dismiss an action with which you’ve yet to served. The message here is to quit dithering and move on.

  I’ll be curious to see what was filed. An order to dismiss is rare cause the court has to view all facts in Brannon’s favor and see if the law gives the remedy he requested. Personally I don’t think Brannon’s there but this is a very high standard Gridley must achieve.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 16 at 12:59 p.m.

  Not surprising on the timeline, I said before it would take a least 4-6 months and God only knows how long when whatever decision rendered is appealed.

  Does anybody know why this particular judge got the case after Mitchell bailed out, since this judge is scheduled to retire Jan. 1?

• 

  Phaedrus on December 16 at 1:01 p.m.

  I’m taking bets as to whether or not Jim Brannon gets a job before the case gets a hearing.

• 

  DFO on December 16 at 1:05 p.m.

  @ Spoke re: “Does anybody know why this particular judge got the case after Mitchell bailed out, since this judge is scheduled to retire Jan. 1?”

  Hosack’s status as a retiring judge shouldn’t affect this case b/c Hosack will complete the various cases he’s hearing before heading to the golf course for an extended period. That’s the way retiring judges do things. If I’m correct, he’ll be able to draw his retirement and whatever pay he gets for actively hearing cases. It’s a pretty good gig.

• 

  nic on December 16 at 1:30 p.m.

  Is it beginning to seem to you that the lawsuit… is going to drag out a long time?

  you know, I seem to remember saying something about this when you first asked how long the lawsuit would take:

  “nic on December 07 at 9:58 a.m.
  They’ll drag it out for as long as they can.”

• 

  nic on December 16 at 1:33 p.m.

  @ kamm RE: Was there a recount?

  No. There wasn’t. One was offered at zero cost to Brannon, but he listened to the advice of Spenser (and others) and opted instead to sue.

  As for the sour grapes? If at first you don’t succeed, try again. If you’ve tried three times and still don’t succeed, sue.

• 

  simpleton on December 16 at 1:44 p.m.

  Until his retirement Judge Hosack is the administrative judge. Amongst his other duties he reassigns judges when the original judge can’t hear a case, so it would appear he reassigned it to himself. Knowing Judge Hosack he probably did this as a favor to the other judges, sparing them much grief.

  I doubt very much the matter will be dismissed in March, although some parts may be dropped, streamlining it somewhat for trial. Even so, my guess is trial itself probably won’t take place before June, providing plenty of fodder for bloggers everywhere!

• 

  Sisyphus on December 16 at 2:33 p.m.

  Dead on simpleton. And you to Dave. District Judges no longer retire, they go to senior status, which makes them available for other cases on the district bench and supplements their retirement income. It is odd however that the dismissal hearing was scheduled so far out, but that could be dependent on lots of things. Given the relief requested, the fact that Starr is not hunting down an immediate injunction speaks volumes. If this matter remains on the regular court calendar, as opposed to an expedited one, it will take far longer than six months. But from what I can see Brannon will throw in the towel before the motion to dismiss can be heard.

  Oh and by the way Dave. You posted the Answer to the Complaint, not the motion to dismiss. The judicial repository reflects a hearing for a dismissal motion being set but not the Answer nor a Motion to Dismiss being filed.

• 

  DFO on December 16 at 3:39 p.m.

  @ Sisyphus re: “Oh and by the way Dave. You posted the Answer to the Complaint, not the motion to dismiss.”

  Am told that the motion to dismiss and one other motion is included in the 25 pages or so of the pdf I posted. I’ll check it out when I come up for air.

• 

  bpoole on December 16 at 3:46 p.m.

  If no one has asked this(I don’t know if anyone has) but if the courts would rule in favor of Jim Brannon’s request to not seat the incumbents, would the council president then have the responsibility of seating the missing council member’s? or would the council members that are currently the sitting members just keep their capacities as such?

• 

  Sisyphus on December 16 at 3:47 p.m.

  My bad Dave. Its there.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 16 at 3:50 p.m.

  bpoole, that is a fanciful argument that Starr doesn’t seem to care about or he’d notice up a hearing promptly to secure an injunction. In short, its BS and he knows it. The law doesn’t give him that remedy.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 16 at 4:06 p.m.

  The Motion to Dismiss carves up the complaint like a hungry Samurai with an apple. The City ably demonstrates that Brannon can’t have it both ways, contest an election without using the election contest statutes to which he has failed to comply. Moreover, the City correctly asserts that the municipal election statutes only allow a claim against the clerk and seeks to dismiss everyone else.

• 

  Joker on December 16 at 4:13 p.m.

  I’ve come to believe that Jim Brannon wants to drag this out as long as possible and then lose. He can use a court defeat as a springboard for his campaign in 2011.

  Brannon almost won on the “I got canned and all they gave me was a t-shirt” platform. In two years, he’ll have his minions bellyache about how he was a victim of a corrupt election process and the good ole’ boy network (justice system).

• 

  Phaedrus on December 16 at 4:44 p.m.

  Just read the Motion to Dismiss; OUCH!

• 

  nic on December 16 at 5:14 p.m.

  bpoole, Bill answered that on the openCDA blog:

  According to Bill, the injuction would “simply ask the court to enjoin the City from declaring the ‘old’ council members to be the ‘new’ council until after his lawsuit and the subsequent election finally declares who the members of the ‘new’ council will be.”

  If the courts rule in Brannons favor with the injustion: “the ‘old’ council would remain as the ‘old’ council until the lawsuit and subsequent election, if any, is finally decided.”

• 

  bpoole on December 16 at 5:32 p.m.

  Good for bill on Opencda.com. I try not to subject myself to that type of in-humane treatment! :^) So, what would be the point of him filing this injunction, if in the end, the result of the law suit was in Brannon’s favor? If Kennedy is not sworn in he will still sit as a council member, and if he is sworn in and then the result of the lawsuit is in favor of the Plaintiff, Kennedy would than not be a council member. I am trying to find a reason beyond that he just wants to drag this out, unfortunately, it continues to present itself as nothing other than someone trying to cause more problems, when the outcome is not in their favor.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic