Charlea Moore, who holds a seat on the Rio Linda/Elverta Recreation and
District Board of Directors, and her husband Gene Moore are suing the
Linda/Elverta Community Water District, asking the District to rescind
wage increase for Water District employees. The Water District has been
that the Moores' motion for a preliminary injunction has been taken off
The Moores announced their lawsuit at the Water District's February 18
meeting by publicly serving a summons on Water District General Manager
Andres. Their lawsuit asks for an injunction to nullify the wage
or to submit the wage increase to the voters. The salary increases the
would stop are for five employees, and have cost $5580 through
according to the District. "Defending this frivolous lawsuit will cost
District far more than that", stated Stacey Sheston, the District's
counsel, on March 7. Confirming Sheston's statement, the Water District
now show $8368 in expenses responding to the Moores through February.
expenses will be borne by the District's 4300 customers.
On March 9th, Superior Court Judge Raymond M. Cadei denied the Moores'
for a Temporary Restraining Order, setting a hearing for a motion for a
injunction on April 18th. In their
motion, the Moores claimed, through
John M. Lattini, their Attorney, that they are "voters...who receive
delivered through the [Water District's] system". The fact,
however, is that
the Moores do not receive water through the Water District's system and
not pay Water Fees.
The Water District has been notified that the April 18 hearing has been
off the court calendar. However, the lawsuit still proceeds.
The Water District, in its response to the Moores' lawsuit, suggests to
judge that the Moores have no beneficial interest or injury and that
Moores' claims are not ones upon which relief may be granted. The Water
asks for a judgment in favor of the District and asks for reimbursement
the District's costs.
The next court hearing date has not been set.
....pertaining to the water district, I'm curious after reading the
documents by the Moores and their attorney, if their attorney was led
believe that the Moores were RLECWD ratepayers, or was it just their
assumption? Most attorneys that I've dealt with don't assume too many
on a legal document that is filed with the court.
March 27, 2003