The anti-SLAPP motion, filed Aug 25, asks the court to dismiss a June lawsuit claiming costly action, brought by San Diego against a county office.

The Association for the City of La Jolla has filed an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) motion against the city of San Diego, in the latest legal move in the effort for La Jolla’s secession from the city.

The anti-SLAPP motion, filed Aug 25, alleges the city filed a June 13 lawsuit “for one reason and one reason only: to squelch the First Amendment rights of the [ACLJ] and the thousands of La Jolla residents who signed [a] petition to pursue the possibility of creating a new city.”

That June lawsuit, brought against the San Diego County Local Agency Formation Commission, the office responsible for investigating a proposed La Jolla incorporation, claims LAFCO certified an ACLJ petition improperly as part of ACLJ’s application process for detachment.

ACLJ believes a city of La Jolla is viable and would be financially beneficial to San Diego and the larger region; the next steps are for LAFCO to review the ACLJ application and organize a comprehensive fiscal analysis to determine feasibility.

But that analysis “will impose substantial irreparable harm on” San Diego, the June lawsuit states, with San Diego having to “incur considerable costs as city staff will be forced to expend substantial time and resources analyzing and collecting the necessary information and data.”

At issue in the lawsuit: the San Diego Registrar of Voters verified 6,523 signatures, short of the required 6,750 needed to launch LAFCO’s inquiry. LAFCO then verified an additional 240 signatures, asserting its discretion to accept minor misspellings of street names and other ROV disqualifications.

“The factual dispute is whether [ACLJ] gathered a sufficient number of signatures from registered voters in La Jolla – which it clearly did,” the anti-SLAPP motion states.

“The legal dispute is whether the LAFCO executive officer had the authority to review the [ROV]’s decisions and determine that the petition had enough signatures – which he clearly did.”

ACLJ’s actions in “Initiating and advancing the LAFCO application,” the motion adds, “were all clearly acts of ‘petition’ and ‘free speech’ relating to a ‘public issue.’”

The filing then urges the court to dismiss the city’s suit.

Calling the lawsuit a case of voter suppression, ACLJ further stated in an Aug 25 press release the anti-SLAPP motion argues the suit is a “meritless attempt” with “shifting legal claims.”

“We have worked very hard to follow the process outlined by LAFCO and state law and gathered the signatures needed to move forward,” ACLJ said in an additional Aug 25 written statement, noting the next steps are not to incorporate but to investigate the feasibility of incorporation.

“We’re committed to making sure this process is thoughtful, respectful, and doesn’t harm the larger San Diego community and the city we are connected to,” ACLJ said.

“We have no comment on pending litigation,” a San Diego City Attorney spokesperson said.

Earlier this month, LAFCO Assistant Executive Officer Priscilla Mumpower said LAFCO has been, and will continue to be, “committed to upholding our statutory responsibilities under state law.”