Star Moffatt’s claim that Scott Wilk should be disqualified from further serving in the state Senate because of his lobbying past is untimely, improper and uncertain, Wilk’s attorneys claim in court documents.
In filing a notice of demurrer, Wilk attorney Scott Hildreth of the Sacramento firm Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk said Moffatt’s case fails to “state facts constituting a cause of action” against Wilk and it should be completely dismissed.
A demurrer generally assumes the truth of a case’s facts but argues they’re legally insufficient.
“Demurrers are meant to be opportunities for early resolutions of cases that are procedurally or legally improper,” Hildreth said. “We believe Ms. Moffatt’s case is both procedurally improper and legally improper.”
Moffatt filed suit in 2016 seeking to prevent Wilk (R-Santa Clarita) from running for the Senate because he had been a registered federal lobbyist who had not sat out a year before seeking office, per the state’s Government Code.
Wilk had worked for Alexandria, Va.-based Anchor Consulting from 2007-11 doing public affairs work for then-Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon. He won election to the Assembly in 2012 and then won his Senate seat in 2016. He said three years ago that he received his last payment from Anchor in 2012, and an Anchor employee previously told the Gazette the company’s records showed Wilk stopped actively lobbying in 2011 before he ran for the Assembly.
Moffatt has countered that because Wilk had never unregistered, he is ineligible to serve and must be removed from office retroactively. Wilk is more than halfway through his term.
The demurrer documents make the following assertions:
–The case is moot because Wilk has already been elected, that the statute of limitations expired because the election happened, and state law holds that courts don’t have jurisdiction to either remove a legislator from office or hear such cases.
–Moffatt waited three years to serve Wilk, even though Wilk is easy to locate, making the delay in bringing an action unreasonable and prejudicial.
–Since the election happened, the only way to get post-election relief is to have another election. Moffatt should be barred from preventing Wilk from seeking any future election. “Here, the Court cannot know (and should not speculate about) Senator Wilk’s potential future candidacies and how the facts and law cited by Plaintiff would apply to said potential candidacies,” Hildreth wrote in the demurrer.
It’s not known when this demurrer would be heard because the original case, Moffatt v. Wilk, must be reassigned because of the court’s limited jurisdiction. The documents show Hildreth had sought a July 3 hearing date, but the minutes from the May 31 hearing show Wilk or his attorneys must contact the clerk of the new court to reschedule.
“Wilk and counsel members may want to withdraw their demurrer to avoid sanctions for filing their demurrer motion with the wrong court,” Moffatt said in a text.
Regardless, Moffatt said she plans to file an opposition and motion to strike the demurrer in its entirety. She didn’t divulge her entire strategy but said she would make two points: Wilk’s attorneys failed to meet and confer with her before filing the demurrer, per the state Code of Civil Procedure, and they failed to file appropriate supporting declarations.
“They jumped the gun. They were trying to do that stall tactic,” Moffatt said. “I think they put the cart before the horse.”
Hildreth cited the same law as Moffatt in asserting an insufficient meet-and-confer process isn’t grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer.