May 6, 2022 Ruben Duran, Esq. Best Best & Krieger LLP 2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 400 Ontario, CA 91761 Dear Mr. Duran: As I am sure you are aware, the City of Ontario is in violation of Section 6.2 of the Settlement and Stipulation for Entry of Judgment entered in the case of Robles, et al. v. City of Ontario, which commits the city to follow all applicable law regarding the conduct of hearings to create initial councilmanic districts. Section 10010(a)(1) required the City to conduct the second pre-map hearing no later than May 5, 2022. This did not occur. The irregularity of the hearing schedule and lack of accommodation have greatly complicated my client’s ability economically to exercise his rights pursuant to Sections 6.1.a and 6.1.d. More critically, the intentional delay of the schedule, which has occurred without consultation with my client, has denied the public the right to participate in the effective manner which the tight schedule is designed to protect. We do not believe that the City has done sufficient outreach to the Spanish-speaking community. As you recall, the City strictly construed the terms of Section 6.5 against Mr. Robles, so we believe the Court will understand our right to have the decree rigorously enforced as to the violation of the statutory schedule. As you know, Section 12(a) and (b) entitle us to enforce the decree, either for damages and specific performance. One approach would be to discontinue the unlawfully conducted hearing process and allow the Court to determine the map. I have urged my client to explore a resolution that will give him a more effective role if the hearing process continues. I would be glad to discuss that alternative with you. Sincerely,
Scott J. Rafferty