A Riverside County Superior Court judge will decide Aug. 1 whether to accept or dismiss a .
This falls just days before the Riverside County Registrar of Voters' Aug. 15 deadline to publish the November ballot, on which the initiative is scheduled to appear, according to attorney Peter Lepiscopo of Pacific Justice Institute.
"(Aug. 1) is when the Superior Court will actually decide whether to grant the petition or dismiss it," said Lepiscopo, who is representing anti red-light camera proponents Diana Serafin and Robin Nielson.
Lepiscopo was present at an ex-parte hearing held Wednesday morning in Riverside, as were attorneys from the city of Murrieta, Riverside County and Bell, McAndrews and Hiltachk, the firm that is representing Murrieta resident Steve Flynn in his fight to get the measure removed from the ballot.
"We are hoping that the petition will be denied," Lepiscopo said. "When a petition like that is denied that is the end of the case."
Lepiscopo said the ex-parte hearing originally scheduled for Friday was continued to today because he objected and asked for an elected judge instead of a court commissioner.
"We only ask for a fair hearing," Lepiscopo said. "Hopefully the court will rule in our favor, and then there won’t be any problem."
Lepiscopo said the case was referred to him, but would not say who is paying him to represent Serafin and Nielson.
"That is confidential information," he told Patch in a phone interview.
Lepiscopo noted he did not hesitate to take the case.
"When you have a ballot measure that is trying to be stopped before it goes on the ballot it should be a concern to all lawyers," he said.
A call to the Sacramento office of Charles H. Bell, Jr., who filed the lawsuit, was not immediately returned Wednesday.
The suit alleges the city does not have authority to regulate red-light cameras as it is state jurisdiction, therefore the measure should not appear on the ballot.
The city of Murrieta, whose city council and city clerk were named in the lawsuit,