1 BARIC TRAN & MINESIGNER STEVE BARIC, ESQ (State Bar No. 200066) 2 2603 Main Street, Suite 1050 3 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: 949-677-3688 4 Facsimile: 949-251-1886

5 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff, 6 TONY KRVARIC

7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF 10 TONY KRVARIC, ) Case No. 11 ) Petitioner and Plaintiff, ) VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF 12 ) MANDATE [CCP §§ 1085], AND v. ) COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE 13 ) RELIEF [CCP §526a] and CITY OF SAN DIEGO; JERRY SANDERS, in his ) DECLARATORY RELIEF.[CCP§1060] 14 official capacity as Mayor, SHERRI LIGHTNER, in ) ) 15 her official capacity as councilmember; KEVIN ) FAULCONER, in his official capacity as ELECTION MATTER ) 16 councilmember; TODD GLORIA, in his official capacity as councilmember; TONY YOUNG, in his ) 17 official capacity as councilmember; CARL ) DEMAIO, in his official capacity as councilmember; ) Date Action Filed: 18 LORIE ZAPF, in her official capacity as ) Trial Date: councilmember; MARTI EMERALD, in her official ) ) 19 capacity as councilmember; DAVID ALVAREZ, in ) his official capacity as councilmember; ) 20 CITY OF SAN DIEGO REDISTRICTING ) COMMISSION; ANISHA DALAL, in her official ) 21 capacity as redistricting commissioner; CARLOS MARQUEZ, in his official capacity as redistricting ) 22 commissioner; FREDRICK KOSMO, in his official ) capacity as redistricting commissioner; ANI ) 23 ) MDIVANI-MORROW, in her official capacity as ) 24 redistricting commissioner; ARTHUR NISHIOKA, ) in his official capacity as redistricting commissioner; ) 25 DAVID POTTER, in his official capacity as ) redistricting commissioner; THERESA QUIROZ, in ) 26 her official capacity as redistricting commissioner; ) and DOES 1 through 100 ) 27 Respondents and Defendants ) 28 / / /

______VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [CCP §§1085], INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [CCP §526a] & DECLARATORY RELIEF 1

1 PARTIES 2 TONY KRVARIC, in his capacity as an Elector and taxpayer of the City of SAN DIEGO, 3 County of SAN DIEGO, alleges as follows: 4 1. Petitioner and Plaintiff TONY KRVARIC (“Petitioner”) is, and at all relevant times 5 hereto was, a resident voter and taxpayer of the City of SAN DIEGO, County of SAN DIEGO 6 (“County”), California. Petitioner is currently registered to vote in the County and has paid property 7 and/or sales taxes to the County within the past twelve months. Plaintiff, as a municipal taxpayer 8 seeking to avoid the waste of municipal assets, falls into the category of a type of claimant long 9 recognized to possess a sufficiently intense interest in his claim to establish his "standing" to enter the 10 courtroom. Because a successful attack on wrongful municipal spending or disposition of assets in all 11 likelihood may reduce the municipal taxpayer's burden of meeting the expenses of government, courts 12 do not doubt that a municipal taxpayer will effectively present his claim. "[T]axpayers have a 13 sufficiently personal interest in the illegal expenditure of funds by [municipal] officials to become 14 dedicated adversaries." (Harman v. City and County of San Francisco (1972) 7 Cal.3d 150.) In this 15 capacity, Petitioner has standing to bring this action pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 526(a) 16 and case law. 17 2. Respondents and Defendants CITY OF SAN DIEGO (“Respondent” and 18 “DEFENDANT”) charter provides that it will appoint residents to its redistricting commission “with a 19 demonstrated capacity to serve with impartiality in a non-partisan role.” As such, SAN DIEGO has an 20 obligation to its residents to ensure that its charter is complied with. 21 3. Respondents and Defendants MAYOR JERRY SANDERS AND 22 COUNCILMEMBERS SHERRI LIGHTNER, , TODD GLORIA, TONY 23 YOUNG, CARL DEMAI, LORIE ZAPF, MARTI EMERALD AND DAVID ALVAREZ 24 (“Respondent” and “DEFENDANT”) are all elected members of the . 25 As such, they all have an obligation to its residents to ensure that its charter is complied with. 26 Additionally, pursuant to SAN DIEGO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 27.1402 (c) “in the event that 27 all of the preceding individuals decline to act, then the City Council shall serve as the appointing 28

______VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [CCP §§1085], INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [CCP §526a] & DECLARATORY RELIEF 2

1 authority, and the appointments to the Redistricting Commission shall be made by a majority vote of 2 the City Council.” 3 4. Defendants SAN DIEGO REDISTRICTING COMMISSION (“DEFENDANT”) The 4 City of San Diego Charter section 5.1 requires the appointment of a seven-member Redistricting 5 Commission (“the Commission”) to “specify the boundaries of districts for the City Council” once 6 every ten years.1 Section 5.1 requires the appointment of impartial, nonpartisan commissioners: “The 7 appointees shall include individuals with a demonstrated capacity to serve with impartiality in a 8 nonpartisan role.” 9 5. Defendants REDISTRICTING COMMISSIONERS (“COMMISSIONERS”) ANISHA 10 DALAL, CARLOS MARQUEZ, FREDRICK KOSMO, ANI MDIVANI-MORROW, ARTHUR 11 NISHIOKA, DAVID POTTER, THERESA QUIROZ (“Respondent” and “DEFENDANT”) are all 12 appointed members of the SAN DIEGO CITY REDISTRICTING COMMISSION. As such, they all 13 have An obligation to its residents to ensure that the SAN DIEGO CITY CHARTER is complied with. 14 Each commissioner must have “demonstrated a capacity to serve with impartiality in a non-partisan 15 role.” Additionally, each commissioner must be a resident of SAN DIEGO. 16 VENUE 17 6. Venue is appropriate under the Code of Civil Procedure § 393 because the Respondent 18 public officers and entities are located in and his acts or omissions giving rise to liability in this case 19 occurred in City of SAN DIEGO and County of SAN DIEGO, State of California. 20 PRIORITY 21 7. This election action alleging an error in the appointing of San Diego Redistricting 22 Commissioners “shall have priority over all other civil matters”. 23 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 24 8. This case is about ensuring a fair redistricting process which would allow the residents 25 of the City of San Diego to have faith and respect for the electoral process which will determine who 26 will serve these citizens on the City Council for the next ten years. Sadly, the process has it has 27 28 1 City Charter §5.1 ______VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [CCP §§1085], INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [CCP §526a] & DECLARATORY RELIEF 3

1 occurred to date has been manipulated by special interests and has been heavily questioned by the local 2 media. The purpose of this suit is to restore the public’s trust in the process. 3 9. The City of San Diego vests its redistricting power in the hands of a commission of 4 seven impartial, non-partisan private citizens. In October, a panel of retired judges appointed three 5 Democrats, two Republicans, and two independents to the commission. Unfortunately, three of the 6 commissioners bring partisan interests to the commission in what appears to be a power grab by the 7 labor movement and other left-of-center causes. The retired judges acted in an executive, non-judicial 8 role, so the prohibition against investigating judicial performance or actions of the court does not apply. 9 10. San Diego voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition C in 1992, which amended the 10 San Diego City Charter to place the City’s redistricting power within the hands of a commission of 11 seven private citizens. This was motivated by a redistricting scandal where the City Council engaged 12 in a partisan redistricting battle for over a year, which resulted in two separate lawsuits. One of its key 13 selling points in support of the creation of the commission was the inclusion of a judge who would vet 14 the “likely impartiality of all the candidates.” 15 11. The end result was the creation of Charter section 5.1, which requires the appointment of 16 a seven-member Redistricting Commission (“the Commission”) to “specify the boundaries of districts 2 17 for the City Council” once every ten years. To prevent partisan redistricting, Section 5.1 requires the 18 appointment of impartial, nonpartisan commissioners: “The appointees shall include individuals with a 19 demonstrated capacity to serve with impartiality in a nonpartisan role.” 20 12. Additionally, Section 5.1 specifically limits the influence incumbents may have upon the 21 Commission: “To the extent it is practical to do so, districts shall…not be drawn for the purpose of 22 advantaging or protecting incumbents.” 23 13. The City Council later elaborated upon the Charter amendment by enacting Division 14 3 24 to Article 7 of the Municipal Code. These ordinances include specific inquiries the City Clerk must 4 25 include on the application form for the Commission. 26 27 2 City Charter §5.1 28 3 See Mun. Code §§27.1401 et seq. 4 See Mun. Code §27.1406(a) ______VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [CCP §§1085], INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [CCP §526a] & DECLARATORY RELIEF 4

1 14. The Charter provides that the Commissioners “shall be appointed by a panel of three 2 retired Superior Court Judges.”5 3 15. Here, the City selected retired Judges Patricia Cowett, William Howatt, and Jim 4 Milliken to the Appointing Authority. The Appointing Authority convened on October 1, 2010, to 5 interview and select the Commissioners. City Clerk Elizabeth Maland announced that Judge Cowett 6 could not attend the meeting, but convened with only Judges Howatt and Milliken present. Applicant 7 Otto Emme questioned the legitimacy of the Appointing Authority convening with only two members. 8 Deputy City Attorney Sharon Spivak responded that two out of three represents a quorum under 9 Robert’s Rules of Order, so convening with only two members was permissible. The Appointing 10 Authority allotted each applicant a two-minute presentation. It declined to ask follow-up questions. 11 Finally, the Appointing Authority went through four rounds of voting before it finally agreed upon the 12 seven Commissioners. 13 16. Sadly, the process was flawed from the beginning. The Charter specifically provides 14 that, if neither presiding judge nor a vote of judges appoint Commissioners, then the Commissioners 6 15 “shall be appointed by a panel of three retired Superior Court Judges.” However, as discussed above, 16 the Appointing Authority convened with only two members. The Deputy City Attorney present 17 determined that pursuant to Roberts Rules of Order that two judges were sufficient. The code makes 18 clear that the Commissioners “shall be appointed by a three judge panel” also nowhere in the bylaws of 19 the Commission does it say that Roberts Rules of Order govern. Importantly, the Charter further 20 provides that if a three judge panel does not appoint the commissioners, then the City Council is 21 obligated to do so. Thus, the Charter provides a process by which a properly constituted Commission 22 can be appointed such that if the three judges who were appointed all could not participate, then the 23 City Council was obligated to do so. 24 17. The three-judge requirement serves an important purpose and is not a mere legal 25 formality. Our society frequently entrusts major decisions to three-person panels because the 26 multiplicity of opinions results in enhanced discussion and creativity. Furthermore, a third opinion

27 5 The Charter actually requires the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court to appoint the Commissioners, but the Presiding Judge declined to do so, as did the remainder of the Superior Court. The panel of three retired judges is therefore the proper appointment mechanism. See 28 City Charter §5.1 6 City Charter §5.1 ______VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [CCP §§1085], INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [CCP §526a] & DECLARATORY RELIEF 5

1 often disrupts the group-think that may emerge where two individuals either share the same opinion, or

2 where one dominant individual controls the decisions. Further, it is most important to keep in mind 3 the plain, clear and unambiguous mandate of the Charter - that the panel be composed of three judges, 4 not two. Nowhere in the Charter of the Municipal Code is there authorization for the panel to act 5 without the presence of three participants. Merely appointing a third judge and then having the judge 6 be unavailable because he "could not attend" begs the question -- why wasn’t the meeting held when 7 the third judge could attend? 8 18. San Diego attempted to remove partisanship from its redistricting process, but partisan 9 interests have nonetheless infiltrated the Commission. For example, Commissioner Marquez concealed 10 his partisan Democratic activism and leadership positions from the Appointing Authority; 11 Commissioner Quiroz and Commissioner Potter improperly contributed to candidates for the City 12 Council seats they are now redistricting; and Quiroz is a board member of a partisan group that has 13 stated its desire to influence the redistricting process. They lack the “capacity to serve with impartiality 14 in a nonpartisan role,” and irreparably harm the Commission’s credibility. 15 19. Carlos Marquez is a partisan Democrat who failed to disclose his partisan activities on 16 his application to the Commission. Marquez organized a protest against Republican Rep. Brian 17 Bilbray’s office in 2007, and he ran for Democratic Party Central Committee in 2008. Marquez also 18 served as Vice President-Political for the Stonewall Young Democrats Club of San Diego and as a 19 member of the San Diego Democratic Club. 20 20. Marquez’s application focused on government and community affairs for the Service 21 Employees International Union, Local 221. He told the Appointing Authority that he left this position 22 in July 2009, but lists himself as an SEIU employee during his July 2010 Honor PAC disclosure, to 23 whom he donated $685 that year. Mr. Marquez also serves on the San Diego Advisory Board of the 24 New Leaders Council, whose mission is “to train and support the next generation of progressive 25 political entrepreneurs.” He also became co-director of the New Leaders Council’s inaugural fellows 26 program in 2010, where he recruited, vetted, and developed twenty liberal activists, including Midori 27 Wong. 28

______VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [CCP §§1085], INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [CCP §526a] & DECLARATORY RELIEF 6

1 21. Marquez appears to be further concealing his partisanship from the public. A Google 2 query shows that Mr. Marquez initially listed his position as Co-Director of the New Leaders Council 3 on his official City website biography, yet the Website no longer contains that information. This 4 indicates that Mr. Marquez requested that the New Leaders Council information be removed once this 5 controversy began. 6 22. Finally, evidence has emerged that Mr. Marquez has relocated from San Diego to West 7 Hollywood, but still serves on the Commission. This expressly violates that Charter requirement that 8 “[e]ach member of the Commission shall be registered to vote in The City of San Diego.” This alone 9 precludes Mr. Marquez from serving on the Commission. 10 23. Marquez is an outspoken Democratic activist. He ran for the Democratic Party Central 11 Committee, organized anti-Republican protests, actively campaigned for Democratic candidates, 12 attempted to help the SEIU influence public policy, and actively engaged in Democratic organizations. 13 Worse yet, he intentionally failed to disclose these partisan activities to the Appointing Authority. In 14 sum, he lacks “a demonstrated capacity to serve with impartiality in a nonpartisan role.” 15 24. Theresa Quiroz and David Potter are registered as Decline-to-State voters, but function 16 as highly partisan Democrats. They have both attempted to materially affect the partisan makeup of the 17 City Council they are now redistricting through numerous campaign donations. 18 Ms. Quiroz contributed to the following City Council campaigns: 19 20 June 2007: Democrat Todd Gloria for San Diego City Council; and 21 August 2009: Democrat Steve Hadley for San Diego City Council. 22 Mr. Potter meanwhile made the following contributions: 23 24 Jan. 2008 Democrat Stephen Whitburn for San Diego City Council; 25 June 2008 Democrat Stephen Whitburn for San Diego City Council; 26 June 2008 Democrat Steve Hadley for San Diego City Council; 27 Nov. 2008 Democrat Stephen Whitburn for San Diego City Council; and 28 June 2009 Democrat Howard Wayne for San Diego City Council.

______VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [CCP §§1085], INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [CCP §526a] & DECLARATORY RELIEF 7

1 25. Donating money to City Council candidates—all Democrats—demonstrates a clear 2 partisan bias that should have automatically disqualified Ms. Quiroz and Mr. Potter. It is difficult to 3 fathom how they can objectively redraw the same districts they previously attempted to influence along 4 partisan lines. Ms. Quiroz’s contribution to Councilmember Gloria is especially questionable, given 5 the Charter requirement that the districts “not be drawn for the purpose of protecting incumbents.”7 6 This donation creates a clear conflict of interest between upholding the Charter and continuing to 7 support Councilmember Gloria. 8 26. Ms. Quiroz and Mr. Potter have both demonstrated a clear bias in favor of Democratic 9 interests in the City Council. This violates the voter intent of eliminating partisanship from 10 redistricting, as well as the clear Charter mandate that the Commissioners possess “a demonstrated 11 capacity to serve with impartiality in a nonpartisan role.”8 12 27. The Appointing Authority selected Ms. Quiroz and David Potter based largely upon 13 their status as Decline-to-State voters. This represented the Appointing Authority’s good-faith effort to 14 apportion Commission membership according to the San Diego voter registration ratio: two 15 Republicans, three Democrats, and two independents. However, neither Ms. Quiroz nor Mr. Potter 16 disclosed to the Commission that they function as partisan Democrats. As a result, they thwarted the 17 Appointing Authority’s intent and created a de facto imbalance of five Democrats and two 18 Republicans. Ms. Quiroz and Mr. Potter both selected the Democratic ballot in the June 2010, June 19 2008, and February 2008 primary elections, and Ms. Quiroz also requested it in the March 2004 20 primary. Additionally, they both frequently contribute to Democratic candidates. In addition to the 21 City Council campaigns described above, Ms. Quiroz also made the following contributions: February 22 2007: $200 to Democrat Auday Arabo for Assembly District 78; and April 2007: $120 to Democrat 23 Auday Arabo for Assembly District 78. 24 28. Mr. Potter also donated $100 to the following Democratic candidates and causes: 25 April 2007 No on Proposition C; and June 2008 Mike Aguirre for San Diego City Attorney 26 29. This is, of course, in addition to their City Council contributions. Between their choice 27 to vote for Democratic candidates and their contributions to Democratic candidates and causes, Ms.

28 7 CITY CHARTER § 5.1. 8 Id. ______VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [CCP §§1085], INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [CCP §526a] & DECLARATORY RELIEF 8

1 Quiroz and Mr. Potter have clearly aligned themselves with the Democratic Party and its special 2 interests. The Appointing Authority would not have selected them had they disclosed this information, 3 so the Commission maintains a 5-2 Democratic majority. 4 30. The Charter restricts Commission membership to “individuals with a demonstrated 5 capacity to serve with impartiality in a nonpartisan role.”9 Ms. Quiroz and Mr. Potter both (1) have 6 used financial contributions to affect the partisan makeup of the Council seats they are now 7 redistricting; and (2) act as partisan Democrats rather than the independents envisioned by the 8 Appointing Authority. Ms. Quiroz and Mr. Potter fail to satisfy the impartial, nonpartisan Charter 9 requirements; instead, they function as heavily partisan Democrats who share a demonstrated 10 redistricting bias favoring Democratic interests. 11 31. Ms. Quiroz—a “Community Activist”—serves as the Vice President of Empower San 12 Diego. Empower San Diego maintains strong ties to the Democratic Party and to highly partisan labor 13 unions. It seeks to advance—according to its website—“progressive values.” Its board consists of the 14 following partisans, in addition to Ms. Quiroz 15 32. Empower San Diego has also demonstrated its partisanship through its actions. It hosted 16 Democratic politicians Rep. and Councilmember Todd Gloria at a 2009 event honoring 17 Lorena Gonzales of the AFL-CIO. Empower San Diego also teamed with Ms. Gonzales to protest state 18 budget cuts. Together, they formed a political coalition that included the San Diego Democratic Party, 19 SEIU Local 221, the San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council, the ACLU, ACORN, UDW Local 20 3930, UPTE-CWA 9119 Local 9, and the International Socialist Organization. It also advocates highly 21 partisan legislative goals, such as government health care, mandated wage increases, government 22 housing, and environmentalism. In sum, Empower San Diego is a de facto political organization that 23 proactively seeks to influence public policy with highly partisan objectives. 24 33. Finally, Empower San Diego has unequivocally declared its intent to affect the 25 redistricting process. It announced that it is participating in the process, and encouraged its members to 26 apply for the Commission. It also boasted that it “directly helped recruit and support” 7 of the 51 27 28 9 CITY CHARTER § 5.1. ______VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [CCP §§1085], INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [CCP §526a] & DECLARATORY RELIEF 9

1 applicants. It also sought to influence this process by endorsing eight of them. In fact, it considers 2 influencing the redistricting process to be one of its top priorities. 3 34. Ms. Quiroz is a partisan activist who has attempted to influence the partisan makeup of 4 the City Council through her contributions and through her leadership in an organization whose stated 5 goal is to influence the redistricting process. Her participation in the redistricting process is therefore a 6 flagrant power grab for left-of-center causes, rather than serving with “impartiality in a non-partisan 7 role.” 8 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 9 (Injunctive Relief – CCP§ 526, CCP§ 526a and San Diego Municipal Code §27.1402) 10 (Defendants City of San Diego, San Diego Redistricting Commission and all Commissioners.) 11 35. Petitioner hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 34 as if set forth fully herein. 12 36. Defendants have the ministerial, nondiscretionary duty not to violate the laws of the 13 State of California, the County of San Diego and the City of San Diego. 14 37. The San Diego Municipal Code provides for the appointment process for members of 15 the Commission. The Code provides that if the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court declines to serve 16 as the appointing authority, the Presiding Judge of the San Diego Judicial District will serve as 17 appointing authority. If the Presiding Judge of the Judicial District declines to serve then a panel of 18 three retired Judges “shall appoint the commissioners.” Finally, in the event that all of the preceding 19 are not capable of performing, the City Council shall serve as the appointing authority. 20 38. Here, the Commission was not lawfully constituted. They were not appointed by a three 21 Judge panel as required by the San Diego Charter. Since given the facts alleged, a three Judge panel 22 was not lawfully constituted, in clear violation of both the plain text of the Charter but also the 23 underlying policies of the provision, the Charter imposed a mandatory duty on the City Council to 24 appoint the commission. 25 39. Because this Commission has not lawfully appointed or constituted they are without any 26 lawful power to act as provided by the City Charter. Therefore, any action they have undertaken or 27 about to undertake is without any lawful authority. Their continued action is ultra vires and a misuse of 28

______VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [CCP §§1085], INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [CCP §526a] & DECLARATORY RELIEF 10

1 taxpayer funds. This court should enjoin this unlawfully composed group from further action until, if it 2 is possible, the City correctly constitutes the Commission in the manner required by the City Charter. 3 40. Accordingly, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 526a and San Diego 4 Municipal Code Section 27.1402 and the City of San Diego Municipal Charter, Petitioner hereby seeks 5 an injunction prohibiting the Defendants from any further actions regarding any additional activity 6 surrounding redistricting in San Diego until the City Council has had an opportunity to lawfully appoint 7 a new commission. 8 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 9 (Writ of Mandate CCP §1085 and San Diego Municipal Code Section 27.1402) 10 (Respondents and Defendants City of San Diego Mayor and All City Councilmembers.) 11 41. Petitioner hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 41 as if set forth fully herein. 12 42. The San Diego Municipal Code provides for the appointment process for members of 13 the Commission. The Code provides that if the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court declines to serve 14 as the appointing authority, the Presiding Judge of the San Diego Judicial District will serve as 15 appointing authority. If the Presiding Judge of the Judicial District declines to serve then a panel of 16 three retired Judges “shall appoint the commissioners.” Finally, in the event that all of the preceding 17 individuals refuse to act, the City Council shall serve as the appointing authority. The Municipal Code 18 specifically states that that the “City Council shall serve as the appointing authority, and appointments 19 to the Redistricting Commission shall be made by a majority vote of the City Council.” 20 43. As alleged above, the three Judge panel was not properly constituted, in that there is an 21 undisputed fact that only 2 judges participated in the appointment process; as a matter of law under the 22 City Charter, the responsibility to appoint Commissioners fell to the City Council. 23 44. Petitioner has no plan, speedy or other remedy in the ordinary course of law and seeks a 24 writ of mandate compelling the Defendants and Respondents to comply with the City of San Diego’s 25 Charter and Municipal Code and create a lawfully constituted Redistricting Commission. Accordingly, 26 we are seeking a Court Order requiring the San Diego City Council to appoint a lawfully constituted 27 Redistricting Commission. 28

______VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [CCP §§1085], INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [CCP §526a] & DECLARATORY RELIEF 11

1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 2 (Declaratory Relief CCP § 1060) 3 (Respondents and Defendants City of San Diego and All City Councilmembers.) 4 45. Petitioner hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 44 as if set forth fully herein. 5 46. An actual controversy now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants concerning their 6 respective rights, duties and obligations under the San Diego Charter and Municipal Code in that 7 Plaintiff alleges that the Charter was violated during the process of appointing the Redistricting 8 Commissioners. 9 47. As a Taxpayer in the City of San Diego, the Plaintiff desires a judicial determination and 10 declaration of the parties’ respective rights, duties and obligations under the San Diego Charter and 11 Municipal Code. Specifically, that the Redistricting Commission was not lawfully constituted and the 12 City Council must appoint an entirely new Commission. In the alternative, Commissioners Potter, 13 Marquez and Quiroz do not demonstrate an ability to be nonpartisan and must be removed from the 14 Commission. 15 16 WHEREFORE, Petitioner and Plaintiff pray as follows: 17 1. For an Order enjoining the Defendants and or staff from any further actions regarding 18 any additional activity surrounding redistricting in San Diego until the City Council has had an 19 opportunity to appoint a lawfully constituted commission; 20 2. That this Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate compelling the Defendants and 21 Respondents to comply with the City of San Diego’s Charter and Municipal Code and create lawfully 22 constituted Redistricting Commission. Accordingly, we are seeking a Court Order requiring the San 23 Diego City Council to Appoint a lawfully constituted Redistricting Commission; or in the alternative 24 issue a writ of mandate removing Commissioners Potter, Marquez and Quiroz because they do not 25 demonstrate an ability to be nonpartisan and Marquez is not a resident of San Diego.and, 26 3. A declaration of the parties’ respective rights, duties and obligations under the Charter. 27 4. A declaration that the Commission was not properly constituted and must be disbanded 28 and that the City Council must select and entire new commission.

______VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [CCP §§1085], INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [CCP §526a] & DECLARATORY RELIEF 12

1 5. A declaration of that Commissioners Potter, Marquez and Quiroz do not demonstrate an 2 ability to be nonpartisan and must be removed from the Commission. 3 6. Because this matter is in the public interest, reasonable attorneys fees; and 4 7. For such and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 5 6 Dated: May ____, 2011 7 8 BARIC TRAN & MINESINGER

9 10 B y : ______Steven D. Baric 11 Attorney for Petitioner and Plaintiff, TONY KRVARIC 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

______VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [CCP §§1085], INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [CCP §526a] & DECLARATORY RELIEF 13

1 VERIFICATION 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 3 4 I, TONY KRVARIC, have read the attached Petition for Writ of Mandate and know its contents. 5 I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge 6 except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I am 7 informed and believe that they are true. 8 9 Executed on ______, 2011, at ______, California. 10 11 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 12 true and correct. 13 14 15 ______TONY KRVARIC 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

______VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [CCP §§1085], INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [CCP §526a] & DECLARATORY RELIEF 14