DeclarationCal. Super. - 6th Dist.May 5, 202110 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21 CV381463 Santa Clara - Civil JAMES R. WILLIAMS, County Counsel (S.B. #271253) XAVIER M. BRANDWAJN, Deputy County Counsel (S.B. #ZWEperior Court Of CA, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, Ninth Floor San Jose, California 95 1 10-1 770 Telephone: (408) 299-5900 Facsimile: (408) 292-7240 Email: Xavier.Brandwain(aDcco.sccgov.or2 Attorneys for Respondents SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS DR. MARY ANN DEWAN and SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DAVID KISSNER AND SHAHRYAR ROKNI, N0. 21CV38 1463 Petitioners, DECLARATION OF XAVIER M. BRANDWAJN IN SUPPORT OF V. RESPONDENTS SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS DR. SANTA CLARA COUNTY MARY ANN DEWAN’S AND SANTA SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS DR. CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF MARY ANN DEWAN et a1., EDUCATION’S EXPARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON Respondents. PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Date: Time: Dept: Judge: Declaration of Xavier M. Brandwajn in Support of Ex Parte Application to Continue Hearing A. Floszca Electronically Filed County of Santa Clara, on 11/12/2021 10:46 AM Reviewed By: A. Floresca Case #21CV381463 Envelope: 7652883 N0 hearing per L.R. 16(C) N0 hearing per L.R. 16(C) 12 Hon. Helen Williams and Hon. Carrie Zepeda 21CV381463 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF XAVIER M. BRANDWAJN I, XAVIER M. BRANDWAJN, declare: 1. I am a Deputy County Counsel for the County of Santa Clara, attorneys 0f record herein for Respondents Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools Dr. Mary Ann Dewan and Santa Clara County Office 0f Education (collectively, “Respondents”) in this action. Imake this declaration in support 0f Respondents’ Ex Parte Application to Continue the Hearing on Petitioners” Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. Iknow the facts herein stated 0fmy own personal knowledge and if called upon t0 d0 so, I could competently testify t0 them under oath. 2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy 0f the order issued by the Court on June 30, 2021 in this action. 3. On July 2, 2021, Respondents filed a notice 0f appeal of the Court’s June 30, 2021 order. 4. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy 0f the order issued by the Court 0n August 5, 2021 in this action. 5. On August 27, 2021, petitioners David Kissner and Shahryar Rokni (collectively, “Petitioners”) filed a motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant t0 Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. The Court subsequently assigned a hearing date of January 10, 2022 for Petitioners’ motion. 6. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy 0f an order issued by the Sixth District Court of Appeal in Respondents’ pending appeal 0f the June 30, 2021 Order. 7. The parties have completed their briefing in the appeal and await the Court of Appeal’s scheduling of oral argument. 8. At approximately 8:00 am. 0n November 12, 2021, pursuant to Rule 0f Court 3. 1203, I notified all counsel 0f record by email 0f Respondents’ intent to apply ex part6 on November 15, 2021, in accordance with Civil Local Rules 8(F) and 16(C), for an order continuing the hearing 0n / / / / / / / / Declaration of Xavier M. Brandwajn in Support of 21CV38 1463 Ex Parte Application t0 Continue Hearing 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioners’ motion for attomeys’ fees. Petitioners oppose the ex parte application. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the State 0f California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 12, 2021 at San José, California. 2516444 /s/XavierM Brandwajn XAVIER M. BRANDWAJN Declaration of Xavier M. Brandwajn in Support of Ex Parte Application t0 Continue Hearing 21CV381463 Exhibit A sTATE BAR No. 335073ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY'AMEJonathan Fisher FIRM NAME The Sutton Law Firm sTREETADDREss. 150 Post Street, Suite 405 GITY. San Francisco TELEPHDNE No: 4157327700 E MAB. AooREss: jpfisher@campaignlawyers.corn ATTQRNEY FQR (name): David Kissner 8 Shahryar Rokni sTATE'A z(PDDDE'4108 Ff,x No.. 4157327701 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Santa Clara STREETADDRESS'91 N 1st St. MAILING ADDRESS 191 N 1st St. c)TYANDEIPcoDE San Jose 95113 BRANCH NAME; PROPOSED ORDER (COVER SHEET) PLAINTIFF/PETITIONEFU David Kissner, Shahryar Rokni DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Mary Ann Dewan OTHER: Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools, et al, FOR COURT IISE DNL V CASE NUMBER. 21CV381463 JUDICIAL OFFICER'udra ibarra DEPT 6 EFS-020 ubmit to the court a proposed order. The proposed order sent tached to this cover sheet. In addition, a version of the proposed court at the same time as this cover sheet and the attached proposed 1. Name of the party submitting the proposed order; Petitioners David Kissner and Shahryar Rokni 2, Title of the proposed order: Proposed Order Granting Writ of Mandate; Sustaining Demurrer 3. The proceeding to which the proposed order relates is: a. Description of proceeding: Petition for Writ of Mandate b. Date and time: 6/17/2021 c. Place: 4. The proposed order was served on the other parties in the case. Jonathan Fisher (TYPE OR PRIM NAME) (SIG)gt URE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judiual Counct of Canfornie EFS.020 IRev February I, 201TI PROPOSED ORDER (COVER SHEET) (Electronic Filing) Page 1 of 2 Crd, Ruuls of Coun, rules 2.252, 3.1312 www courts.ca go v on 6/25/2021 10:52 AM Reviewed By: R. Burciaga Case #21CV381463 Envelope: 6724252 21CV381463 Santa Clara - Civil R. Burciaga CASENAMEI'issner v. Dewan et al. CASE NUMBER: 21 CV381463 EFS4)20 PROOF OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE PROPOSED ORDER 1. I am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. My residence or business address is (specify): 150 Post Street, Suite 405, San Francisco CA 94108. b. My electronic service address is (specify); j pfisher@campaignlawyers,corn 2, I electronically served the Proposed Order (Cover Sheet) with a proposed order in PDF format attached, and a proposed order inan editable word-processing format as follows: a. On (name ofperson served) (lf the person servedis an attorney, the party or parties represented should also be stated): Gabriel Markoff, Xavier Brandwajn, Marcel Quinones, Melissa Kiniyalocts (Marry Ann Dewan & Santa Clara County of Education); Brian Bock (Lorna Prieta Joint Union School District); Mary Hanna-Weir (Santa Clara Registrar); Ruby Marquez(Santa Cruz County Clerk) b. To (electronic service address of person served): See prior proofs of service for full address list. c. On (date): 6/2212021 ~x Electronic service of the Proposed Order (Cover Sheet) with the attached proposed order in PDF format and service of the proposed order in an editable word-processing format on additional persons are described in an attachment. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 6/25/2021 Jonathan Fisher (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF OECLARANTI (SGNATURE OF OECLARANTI EFS-020 (Rev. February 1, 2017( PROPOSED ORDER (COVER SHEET) (Electronic Filing) Pase2012 1 THE SUTTON LAW FIRM, PC James R, Sutton, State Bar No, 135930 2 JP Fisher, State Bar No, 335073 150 Post Street, Suite 405 3 San Francisco, CA 94108 Tel; 415/732-7700 4 Fax: 415/732-7701 6 Attorneys for Petitioners David Kissner and Shahryar Rokni 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 11 David Kissner and Shahryar Rokni, Case No.: 21CV381463 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 Petitioners, Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools Dr. Mary Ann Dewan; Santa Clara County Office of Education; Lorna Prieta Joint Union School District; Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Shannon 8ushey; Santa Cruz County Clerk Tricia Webber; and DOES 1-10; Respondents, Assigned for All Purposes to the onorable Judge Audra Ibarra) [PROPOSEDI ORDER GRANTING WRIT OF MANDATE; SUSTAINING DEMURRER 24 25 Petitioners David Kissner and Shahryar Rokni's Petition for Writ of Mandate against Respondents Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools Dr. Mary Ann Dewan26 27 ("Superintendent Dewan"), Santa Clara County Office of Education (the "Office of Education") 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 XXXXXXXXXX xXXXXXXX Filed June 30, 2021 County of Santa Clara Superior Court of CA Clerk of the Court 21CV381463 By: svera 1 Santa Clara County Registrar ofVoters Shannon Bushey (the "Santa Clara Registrar"), Santa Cruz County Clerk Tricia Webber (the "Santa Cruz Clerk"), and Lorna Prieta Joint Union School 3 District ("School District") came before this Court on June 7, 2021, 4 The Court, having considered all moving and opposing papers and oral arguments finds5 as read in open court on June 17, 2021, as follows: 7 1. Petitioners actually, substantially and reasonably complied with the requirements 8 of Education Code section 5091(fl(1)(A) to compel a special election to fill the vacancy on the 9 Governing Board of the Lorna Prieta Joint Union School District. 10 2, Petitioners'ecision to include on the petition only the August 2021 cost estimate 11 provided by the Santa Clara Registrar and the sole election estimate provided by the Santa Cruz12 13 Clerk was reasonable, for several reasons, Petitioners reasonably believed and concluded that a November 2021 election was not a legal possibility given Superintendent Dewan's 30-day deadline to certify the petition, and the fact that the election must be held within 130 days after the 16 petition's certification, unless an established election date was within 150 days of certification. 17 They accordingly included the cost estimate given to them for the date within the timeframe during 18 which they reasonably believed the election could legally be held, In addition, the Santa Cruz 19 Clerk only provided a single cost estimate to Petitioners, and section 5091 requires the petition20 include a cost "estim te" ina the smgular tense, not plural. Supenntendent Dewan s and the Office of Education's argument that Petitioners should have solely relied on the type of election in the 23 Santa Clara Registrar's cost estimate is unpersuasive because, among other reasons, the title of 24 each estimate started with the election date, The Court also finds Petitioners'orrespondence with 25 the Santa Clara Registrar's Office and Santa Cruz Clerk's Office demonstrates their good faith 26 efforts to comply with the law, 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 XXXXXXXX That Petitioners' belief, that a November 2021 election was not a legal possibility, was reasonable is underscored by the fact that both the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters and the Santa Cruz County Clerk originally indicated that the last day for a special election is September 21, 2021 in their statements of non-opposition even though they later changed their position. I 3. Petitioners actually, substantially and reasonably complied with the requirements ofEducation Code section 5091(f)(I)(D) because Petitioners did not raise $2,000 and therefore do 3 not qualify as a "committee" under Elections Code section 101 and Government Code section4 82013, and therefore were not required to include a Top Funders Disclosure.5 6 The case is not ripe as against the School District because Superintendent Dewan and the Office of Education have sole discretion to determine whether the petition satisfies the 8 requirements of section 5091 and whether to schedule a special election to fill the vacancy, 10 12 13 14 Additionally, the School District's only role in officially calling the election is, after the election is scheduled by Superintendent Dewan and the Office of Education, for its governing board to decide whether to exercise its discretion to authorize the election be conducted as an all-mail election, pursuant to Elections Code section 4004. Therefore, the writ of mandate requirements under Elections Code section 13314 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 were not met by Petitioners as against the School District, 16 Because Petitioners have no plain, speedy, or other adequate remedy in the ordinary course 17 of law, the Court grants their Petition for Writ of Mandate in part and denies it in part, 18 IT IS ORDERED that: 19 1. Respondent Lorna Prieta Joint Union School District's Demurrer is SUSTAINED,20 21 2. A peremptory writ of mandate in due form of law be issued ordering Respondents Superintendent Dewan and the Office ofEducation to deem the content of the petition (as opposed 23 to the collected signatures) legally sufficient, to complete the signature verification process, and, 24 if there are enough verified signatures, to then deem the entire petition legally sufficient in total 25 and schedule an election, at which point (but not before) the provisional appointment made by the 26 School District's Governing Board on March 15, 2021 will terminate by operation of law, Any27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER 3 XXXXXXXX There was no fundraising, no expenses and no committee. For the same reasons, any failure to comply with section * *5091(f)(1)(D) was harmless. I ate chosen for a special election to fill the vacancy on the School District's Governing Board 2 created in January 2021 shall be a date allowed by law within 130 days of this judgment, or an 3 established election date if one falls within 130 to 150 days of this judgment. 4 3, A peremptory writ of mandate in due form of law be issued ordering Respondents5 6 Santa Clara County Registrar of Voter and the Santa Cruz County Clerk to make arrangements and provisions for the election at the date set by Superintendent Dewan and the Office of 8 Education. 9 4. This case shall be stayed for seven (7) days from the date it is ordered. 10 5, Petitioners'equest for attorneys'ees and costs is denied without prejudice, and 11 Petitioners may bring a duly noticed motion for attorneys'ees and costs after the stay ordered by12 this Court has expired, 13 14 15 16 Dated.'7 , 2021 JUDGE AUDRA IBARRA 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSEDI ORDER 4 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX the petition being deemed legally sufficient in total XXXXXXXX the petition being deemed legally sufficient in total. XXXXXXX this order is filed. Signed: 6/30/2021 01:09 AM June 30 Exhibit B OOQON \D 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 on 7/29/2021 2:52 PM Reviewed By: R. Nguyen Envelope: 6952776 THE SUTTON LAW FIRM, PC James R. Sutton, State Bar No. 135930 JP Fisher, State Bar N0. 335073 150 Post Street, Suit 4057 San Francisco, CA 94108 Tel: 415/732-7700 Fax: 415/732-7701 jsutt0n@campai2nlawyers.com jpfisher@campafgnlawyers.com Attorneys for Petitioners David Kissner and Shahryar Rokni SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION David Kissner and Shahryar Rokni, Petitioners, V. Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools Dr. Mary Ann Dewan; Santa ‘ Clara County Office of Education; Loma Prieta Joint Union School District; Santa Clara County Registrar 0f Voters Shannon Bushey; Santa Cruz County Clerk Tricia Webber; and DOES 1-10; Respondents. Case N0. 21CV381463 DENYING EX PARTEAPP. TO{FEW ORDE IFTING STAY, OR IN THE A TERNATIVE, SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO LIFT STAY WQSEB] ORDER Filed August 5, 2021 County of Santa Clara Superior Court of CA Clerk of the Court 21CV381463 By: svera OOVO‘xU‘l-b \O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 filed their Petitioners David Kissner and Shahryar Rokni’s (“Petitioners”)/‘\‘EX Parte Application for Order Lifting Stay, or in the alternative, Order Shortening Time for Jul 29, 2021 with notice for Hearing on Motion t0 Lift Stay” earns onWen Friday, July 30, 2021. 'rn Dcpcutmcut 6 uf the S“n*a Clnra Ccunty Supéasitgsufirtheflcumxahwmlhm hdge¥fes+dmg- The court received the papers on August 4, 2021. Having reviewed the Court’s file, including the papers filed in connection with . . and OPPOSition theretO, . . not sufficiently Petltloners’ ex parte apphcatmnflthe Court finds that Petltloners havgdemonstrated that Petitioner Shahryar Rokni will suffer irreparable professional harm if the automatic stay, in effect as a result 0f Respondents Superintendent Mary Ann Dewan and Santa Clara per CCP section 1110b. County Office 0f Education’s July 2, 2021 filinfi of a Notice 0f Appeal, is not liftedfl Further any potential such harm is speculative ere. Therefore, 1 __ , A l. .A A A g g‘ . - .........."7 v -*‘--:---e-e!!-lg-ll=l.li = : I " I i I a fl l . :' 4' _ - a . August 13, 2021 at SO ORDERED. August 5 Signed: 8/5/2021 12:01 PM Dated:m , 2021 M HELEN E. ‘v‘v'iLLiAi‘v‘iS THE HONORABLEWE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT {?RGPGSEBj ORDER l PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed at the Sutton W Firm in the City and County 0f San Francisco, California. On July 29, 2021, I served th regoing documents entitled: ROPOSED] ORDER LIFTING STAY O THE ALTERNATIVE, SHOR NING TIME FOR HEARING ON APPLI ION TO LIFT STAY The above-referen d documents were served 0n: Marcelo Quinones, Esq. Ruby Marquez, Esq. Xavier Brandwajn, Esq. Counsel for Respondent Santa Cruz Melissa Kiniyalocts, Esq. County Clerk Tricia Webber Dr. Mary Ann Dewan Santa Cruz County Counsel’s Office County Superintendent 0f Schools 701 Ocean St., Rm. 505 County Office of Education 1290 Ridder Park Dr. San Jose, CA 95131 marcelo.quinones@cco.SCQgOV.0rg xavier.brandwain(fi>,cco.sccgovorg Brian Bock, Es 1nel\msa.kiniyalocts@cco.sccgovg‘g Counsel for Respo ent Lisa Fraser Superintendent, Loma 'eta Joint Union Mary Hanna- ir, Esq. School District Counsel for Respo ent Santa Clara The Bock Law Group, PC County Registrar 0fV0 s Shannon 3 1610 Railroad Canyon Road, Suit 2 ushey Canyon Lake, CA 925 87 San Clara County Counsel's O brian@m'0activeblg.00m marvhanna-we' ‘ (408) 299-5945 attachments to the addressees shown above. % (State) I declare under penalty that the above is true and correct. erjury under the laws 0f the State California Executed 0n July 29, 2021, at San Francisco, California. §ka Ukw QP Fisfig} Exhibit C Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District Baltazar Vazquez, Clerk/Executive Officer Electronically FILED on 10/7/2021 by W, Wilbourn, Deputy Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DAVID KISSNER et a1., Plaintiffs and Respondents, V. SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOL DR. MARY ANN DEWAN et a1., Defendants and Appellants. H049270 Santa Clara County Super. Ct. N0. 21CV381463 BY THE COURT: Respondents’ request for calendar preference is granted. Appellants’ reply brief shall remain due on October 18, 2021. No extensions of time shall be allowed without exceptional cause. Date; 10.107r2021 W7;L m. Exhibit D From: mam To: JP Fisher; Brian Bock; Hanna-Weir, Mam; ruby.marguez@santacruzcouny.us; James Sutton Cc: Kiniyalocts. Melissa; Quinoneg, Marcelo; Ramog. Linda; Jimgngz. §angra; Brgngngn, Xavigr Subject: Kissner, et. al. v. Santa Clara County Office 0f Education, et a;. -- NOTICE of Ex Parte Application Date: Friday, November 12, 2021 7:57:23 AM Attachments: Kissner -- 11-12-2021 Ex Parte Application.pdf imagfiDDLDm Kissher -- Proposed Order re 11-12-2021 Ex Parte Application.pdf Ki§§n§r -- Brandwajn Dgglaragign rg 11-12-2921 Ex Pafig Appligggignggf Counsel: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rules of Court 3.1203 and 3.1204, this email provides notice that Respondents Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools Dr. Mary Ann Dewan and Santa Clara County Office of Education (”Respondents”) will apply and appear ex parte on Monday, November 15, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., in Department 12 of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, located at 191 North First Street San Jose, CA 95113, for an order continuing the January 10, 2022 on Petitioners’ motion for attorneys’ fees until the later of (i) sixty (60) days or (ii) the resolution in Petitioners’ favor of Respondents’ appeal of this Court’s June 30, 2021 order granting Petitioners’ petition for a writ of mandate. However, because Civil Local Rule 16(C) provides that ”[a]|| ex parte applications will be heard on the papers unless the Court orders otherwise,” it is our understanding, further supported by the handling of previous ex parte applications in this matter, that there will be no hearing unless the court orders otherwise. As shown in the attached papers, this application is brought pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1202 on the grounds that the relief requested is necessary to prevent irreparable harm and the waste of County and judicial resources necessary to oppose Petitioners’ premature motion for attorneys’ fees before and unless Petitioners secure the relief they sought in this action by prevailing in Respondents’ pending, fully briefed, and expedited appeal of this Court’s underlying June 30, 2021 Order. It is our understanding, based on Petitioners’ refusal (in their October 22, 2021 email) of our proposed stipulation to the relief Respondents request here, that Petitioners oppose this eX parte application. If Petitioners’ position has changed, please let us know promptly. To the other named defendants: please let us know if you intend to oppose and appear for this ex parte application. Thank you, Xavier Xavier M. Brandwajn | Deputy County Counsel Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara 7O West Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Floor | San José, CA 95110 Office: (408) 299-5904 | Mobile: (408) 307-0503 | Facsimile: (408) 292-7240 xavier.brandwa'n@cco.sccgov.org NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: The information in this email is confidential and may be protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges. If you received this email in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it is strictly prohibited. Please notify Administration, Office of the County Counsel, of the error immediately at 408-299-5900 and delete this communication and any attached documents from your system. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Kissner, et al. v. Santa Clara County Superintendent 0f Case No.3 21CV381463 Schools Dr. Marv Ann Dewan. et al. I, Linda Ramos, declare: I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been over the age 0f eighteen years, employed in Santa Clara County, California, and not a party t0 the Within action or cause; that my business address is 7O West Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Floor, San Jose, California 95 1 10-1770. My electronic service address is: 1inda.ramos@cco.sccgov.org. On November 12, 2021, I electronically served copies 0f the following: DECLARATION OF XAVIER M. BRANDWAJN IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS DR. MARY ANN DEWAN’S AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION’S EXPARTE APPLICATION T0 CONTINUE THE HEARING ON PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES to the people listed below at the following electronic service address: The Sutton Law Firm The Sutton Law Firm James R. Sutton, Esq. JP Fisher Email: jsuttonchampaignlamers.com Email: jpfisher@campaignlawyers.com Attorneysfor Petitioners Attorneysfor Petitioners David Kissner and Shahryar Rokm' David Kissner and Shahryar Rokm' Office of County Counsel - Santa Clara Proactive Legal - The Bock Law Group, PC Mary Hanna-Weir Brian D. Bock Email: marv.hanna-weir@cco.sccgov.org Email: brian@proactiveBLG.com Attorneyfor Respondent Santa Clara County Attorneyfor Respondent Lisa Fraser Registrar 0f Voters Shannon Bushey Superintendent, Loma Prieta Joint Union School District County of Santa Cruz Office of the County Counsel Ruby Marquez Email: rubv.marquez@santacruzcountv.us Attorneyfor Respondent Santa Cruz County Clerk Tricia Webber // // Proof of Service by Electronic Mail Case Number: 21CV381463 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed 0n November 12, 2021. /s/ Linda Ramos Linda Ramos Proof of Service by Electronic Mail Case Number: 21CV381463
