Faux Resistance and Costly Political Posturing: Fish, Barba, McMorrin and the Culver City Democratic Club (CCDC)

Introduction

Culver City recently faced a costly and unnecessary legal battle against Mayor Yasmine-Imani McMorrin and council candidates Bryan "Bubba" Fish and Nancy Barba, who, along with their attorney Ellis Raskin—himself a candidate for city council in Santa Monica—filed a lawsuit against their own city. This lawsuit, centered around the city’s experimental and controversial downtown bike and bus lanes, was dismissed by the courts due to irrelevant and speculative evidence.

The result? Over $200,000 wasted in taxpayer funds—a hefty price for a political stunt by a sitting councilmember and two candidates. This case highlights the ongoing efforts of a faux resistance that seeks to control the narrative through baseless lawsuits, misleading political agendas, and the support of organizations like the Culver City Democratic Club (CCDC), which fails to live up to its own bylaws.

Political Ties and Election Speculation

Bryan "Bubba" Fish, Nancy Barba, and Yasmine-Imani McMorrin are fully entrenched in the old guard faux progressive camp of Gary Silbiger, Meghan Sahli-Wells, Thomas Small, Alex Fisch, and Daniel Lee — political figures who left behind a legacy of flip-flopped positions and dangerous hypocrisies. This group, along with their supporters for the upcoming election, took their beliefs so far as to sue their own city to prevent changes to the “Move Culver City” project. Their lawsuit, which they ultimately lost, cost the city $200,000 in legal fees. Even more outrageous, the lawsuit they concocted argued that because McMorrin, Barba, and Fish might win the upcoming November 2024 election, the judge should halt the city’s road changes until the election results were determined.

Courts do not exist to speculate on election outcomes, yet the petitioners’ legal argument was rooted in this premise—a blatant attempt to influence policy through the courts rather than respecting the will of the people. The evidence is crystal clear: Fish, Barba, and McMorrin are not just ignoring but actively opposing the overwhelming 85% of residents who want changes to the streets.

It’s just so strange and unbelievable to wrap your head around, it bears repeating: Bryan “Bubba” Fish, Nancy Barba, and Yasmine-Imani McMorrin filed a lawsuit against Culver City to ask the court system to prevent a public works project approved by 85% of residents surveyed. But they had no sufficient evidence to make their case and asked the judge what amounted to, “We might win the election in November, so isn’t that enough of a reason?”

Even more disturbing is the role the Culver City Democratic Club (CCDC) plays in propping up these politicians. The CCDC, which is supposed to follow strict bylaws regarding transparency and ethical conduct, has repeatedly failed to hold its members accountable. On paper, they state an aim of advancing the "educational interest of the community" and fostering "active participation of constituents," yet their willingness to support a bogus lawsuit against their own city is blatantly disingenuous. Despite these failures, the organization continues to provide a platform for figures like Fish, Barba, and McMorrin, further cementing their influence and tacit acceptance of a reality devoid of facts.

The Lawsuit: A Baseless Argument

According to court documents, the Fish/Barba/McMorrin lawsuit was poorly managed from the start. Their lawyer, Ellis Raskin, missed key deadlines and submitted irrelevant evidence, including an article from WIRED, which the court quickly dismissed for its lack of legal relevance. In addition, the petitioners’ case relied heavily on “comments from local residents based on personal experience” without offering any substantial data. The court noted that public comments “are not substantial evidence” that the restoration of traffic lanes would create any safety hazards.

One of the more absurd pieces of evidence presented by Fish/Barba/McMorrin came from David Metzler and Annie Cohen, who recounted personal stories about bike-related incidents—stories that didn’t even occur within the project area. Metzler, for example, was hit by a car on Ocean Park Boulevard, far from the modified project area, and Cohen’s bike accident also took place outside the scope of the “Move Culver City” project, in fact, even before the Move project was installed. The court dismissed these personal anecdotes as irrelevant and noted that "Petitioner offers no evidence" to support claims that restoring traffic lanes would lead to increased traffic or safety hazards.

Further compounding the weak case, the petitioners cited hyperlinked documents from websites like the UC Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and the California Induced Travel Calculator (ITC) that led to generic web pages requiring additional steps to locate the referenced data. Further, some of the data from these websites in the Fish/Barba/McMorrin lawsuit had no bearing on the Move project, as the information was gathered before Move was installed. Regardless, the court ruled these hyperlinks insufficient, stating they did not meet the legal standards required for admissibility. The lawsuit was shoddily constructed through and through.

Moreover, the petitioners offered no expert testimony to support their claims. The court noted that they provided “no empirical evidence” that reopening a lane to vehicle traffic would increase traffic volume or speed along Culver Blvd. or Washington Blvd. The judge also highlighted that the term “induced demand” was misused by the petitioners, pointing out that the reopening of a lane does not represent a "new" use but simply restores a former use.

Financial Impact on Culver City

The financial toll on the city was severe. With over $200,000 in legal fees, this lawsuit drained taxpayer dollars that could have been used to improve city infrastructure or support local services. Local independent businesses were also negatively affected by the ongoing confusion and disruptions caused by the downtown bike and bus lane project, further compounding the negative impact of the lawsuit. Some of those businesses were forced to close as a result of the financial losses.

Despite the defeat, the petitioners, Bryan "Bubba" Fish, Nancy Barba, and Yasmine-Imani McMorrin, went ahead and filed an appeal. According to an ex parte notice filed by Ellis Raskin, their intent was to apply for a stay of the court’s decision pending both an appeal and the results of the November 2024 election. This continued effort to delay progress and appeal the ruling only increased the financial burden on the city.

The Absurdity of the “Move Culver City” Lawsuit

The lawsuit was a misguided attempt to protect the “Move Culver City” project, which was always intended to be a pilot program. As former council member Thomas Small explained in an interview, "Nothing is permanent. It's all a temporary pilot. It can be adjusted and changed." He described the project as a “quick-build” and an experiment in “tactical urbanism” designed to test ideas in real-time and make adjustments based on collected data.

This data collection alone cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars, a figure that does not even account for the significant infrastructure changes needed to install the controversial bike and bus lanes. Despite the project's pilot status, the politicians behind the lawsuit framed it as though any alteration to the lanes would be a permanent rollback of progress. In reality, the city was following the original plan to analyze data and make informed changes, not dismantle the project altogether.

But Fish, Barba, and McMorrin won't even discuss their tight involvement in this lawsuit and their willingness to unnecessarily burden residents with the legal fees needed to defeat their lawsuit-without-data. And data is precisely what is being used by the city to make the current changes to "Move Culver City".

The changes happening now are to bring the full project into alignment with itself and connect it further eastward into Los Angeles and the shared bus and bike facilities in place on that side of town.

It is striking that Fish, Barba, and McMorrin all oppose these data-driven changes that actually create more continuity with shared bus and bike lanes throughout Los Angeles County. The irony is palpable and should be seen in the broader context of their ideological motives that willfully ignore data and the wants and needs of residents.

With the lawsuit defeated, Fish, Barba, and McMorrin tried to force a stay with an ex parte petition. The judge swiftly denied that, did not allow any oral argument by Ellis Raskin, and stated, "That is the weakest petition I've ever seen in an environmental case." The judge said what residents have been experiencing for months: relying on some public comments in a meeting by the privileged few is not an empirically-driven, evidentiary-based argument.

The Broader Context

This lawsuit is not an isolated incident. It represents a broader pattern of political posturing by certain figures in Culver City who aim to control the narrative through baseless resistance, a resistance they manufacture, as at least two-thirds of Culver City's residents are registered Democrats, and all of the current City Council are registered Democrats. However, Bryan "Bubba" Fish, Nancy Barba, Yasmine-Imani McMorrin, and their political allies like Alex Fisch, Meghan Sahli-Wells, Daniel Lee, and Thomas Small, have continually pushed for policies disconnected from the needs of Culver City residents. The Culver City Democratic Club (CCDC) plays a central role in this political machinery, providing a platform for these figures to distort reality and develop methods of deception that circumvent the club’s own bylaws.

This faux resistance claims to stand for progressive ideals, yet their actions have resulted in the misallocation of resources and financial harm to the city. As seen in the lawsuit, their claims lack the factual and expert backing needed to enact real change, relying instead on speculative and ideologically driven arguments that fail to stand up in court.

As we approach the next election, it is critical for Culver City voters to choose leaders who prioritize evidence-based policies and practical solutions over political gamesmanship.

In November 2024, the choice is clear. Vote for Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin, Denice Renteria, and Albert Vera—leaders committed to maintaining the common sense and responsible governance that has already begun to be restored in Culver City.

Sources: