This Article Has been updated with a correction:
Residency Rules Prompt Huntington Park City Council Seat Dispute
Huntington Park city officials are defending their decision to remove Councilmember Esmeralda Castillo from office earlier this year, as a legal battle brews over whether her council seat was lawfully declared vacant. The City of Huntington Park maintains that Castillo automatically forfeited her position because she no longer lived within city limits, a requirement under California law and local ordinance.
Castillo, however, has challenged her ouster in court, alleging it was driven by retaliation rather than the stated issue of residency. The dispute has left her council seat in limbo and put a spotlight on the city’s governance and transparency practices.
Under California Government Code § 36502(a), elected city council members must reside in the city they serve and be registered city voters; if a councilmember moves out of town during their term, the office “shall immediately become vacant” by operation of law. Huntington Park’s municipal code echoes this rule, obligating councilmembers to remain city residents throughout their tenure. City officials say that is precisely what happened in Castillo’s case.
“The council seat previously held by Councilmember Castillo was deemed vacant by operation of law due to her nonresidence within city limits,” the City stated in a recent press release, emphasizing that her disqualification was automatic and legally mandated once evidence showed she was no longer a local resident.
Investigation and Police Surveillance Findings
The events leading up to Castillo’s removal began last year. According to city records, Huntington Park received public complaints as early as September 2024 questioning whether Castillo still lived in the city. In response, the City launched an investigation to verify the councilmember’s residency. That investigation enlisted the help of the Huntington Park Police Department, which conducted surveillance to determine where Castillo was actually living.
In early February, officers reportedly paid simultaneous visits to Castillo’s listed address in Huntington Park and to her parents’ home in the nearby city of South Gate – and found Castillo at the South Gate residence.
City-hired special counsel Andrew Sarega reviewed the findings and concluded that Castillo was not residing at her Huntington Park address. On February 18, during a closed-session meeting, the City Council voted 3-1 to formally declare Castillo’s seat vacant on the grounds that she had ceased to be a city resident. (Mayor Karina Macias was the lone dissenting vote, according to meeting records.)
The next day, the City announced the council vacancy and called a special meeting to initiate the process for filling the unexpired term, in accordance with state law’s 60-day deadline for filling council vacancies. Huntington Park officials assured residents that an “open, transparent and fair process” would be used to appoint a replacement, encouraging community members to stay informed and participate.
Court Battle Over Ouster and Current Status
Castillo swiftly responded with legal action. In late February, the 21-year-old first-term councilmember filed a lawsuit against the City of Huntington Park, City Manager Ricardo Reyes, Vice Mayor Arturo Flores, and Councilmembers Eduardo “Eddie” Martinez and Jonathan Sanabria – the city leaders involved in removing her. Her suit claims that the council’s move to boot her from office violated her rights. Castillo argues she was stripped of her seat without due process or a fair chance to defend herself, and she disputes the city’s basis for declaring a vacancy.
Critically, Castillo’s lawsuit also asks the court to block the city from filling her former council seat while the case is unresolved. In early March, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge did issue an order preventing Huntington Park from appointing a new councilmember in the interim.
However, when Castillo’s attorneys sought a more sweeping temporary restraining order (TRO) against the city, they faced a setback. On March 20, the court denied Castillo’s TRO request, allowing the city to continue preparatory steps for a replacement pending further hearings. The judge’s ruling, as described by the city, affirmed that the City Council is “the appropriate judge of the qualifications of its members” and found that the council’s actions in declaring the seat vacant did not cause harm to Huntington Park residents. This early court decision buoyed the City’s position that it acted within its authority and legal duty.
Still, the legal battle is far from over. Shortly after the TRO decision, the court imposed a separate stay that has temporarily halted the final appointment of a new councilmember. Essentially, the judge instructed the City not to fill the vacant seat until the core issues of the lawsuit are resolved, keeping the status quo in place. A follow-up hearing in late March brought no definitive resolution, and as of April 7, the case remains ongoing in Superior Court.
“We are optimistic the court will agree with the City’s position,” Huntington Park Mayor Arturo Flores said ahead of an April hearing, adding that the City intends to proceed with its appointment process for a new councilmember as soon as the court gives clearance.
For now, Castillo’s seat remains unoccupied, and the City Council continues to meet with one less member.
Retaliation Claims and City Clarifications
While the City of Huntington Park insists the issue at hand is simply residency, Castillo and her supporters claim there is more to the story. They contend that her removal was actually a retaliatory act tied to a workplace harassment complaint she had filed against city officials.
In early January, Castillo lodged a formal complaint alleging she was subjected to harassment, discrimination, and a hostile work environment at City Hall – CORRECTION: including explosive allegations of sexual harassment and bullying by three of her male council colleagues. The complaint filed by Ms. Castillo did not contain any allegations of sexual harassment.
Her claims first surfaced in local media reports that raised questions about whether Huntington Park’s stated reason for removing her was merely “a scheme,” as one outlet put it, to silence a whistleblower.
City officials have strongly refuted these accusations. In a February 20 press statement, the City addressed the “recent workplace allegations” head-on, noting that no Huntington Park Council member was under investigation for Castillo’s harassment claims.
The City reported that Castillo’s complaint “includes claims of harassment, discrimination, and a hostile work environment,” but also stated that the filing lacked certain legal requirements needed to trigger a formal investigation. As a result, “there is no active investigation into any City Council member” related to those claims, officials clarified.
In effect, the City is saying that Castillo’s harassment allegations were never substantiated or pursued by the City, and therefore played no role in the decision to unseat her. Huntington Park’s spokespersons have even characterized recent media speculation about sexual harassment influencing the ouster as false. They maintain the sole reason for Castillo’s removal was her failure to meet the residency qualifications for office, and they point out that the council’s action was backed by the letter of the law.
Castillo’s Background and Public Service
Esmeralda Castillo’s clash with City Hall comes less than a year after she was elected to the Huntington Park City Council. A lifelong Huntington Park resident (until the residency controversy) and alumna of local schools, Castillo ran for office as a fresh face and was elected in March 2024 at just 21 years old.
Her official city biography highlighted her deep community roots and promised that her youth would bring “experience and passion to local governance.” Castillo’s election made headlines as part of a wave of new leadership in the 2024 municipal election, which saw her and two others win at-large council seats.
During her brief tenure on the council, Castillo aligned herself with Mayor Karina Macias on several issues and was known for advocating civic engagement among younger residents. There was no indication of controversy until questions about her residency surfaced in late 2024. Castillo has stated that she had no intention of abandoning her term and that she only stayed at the South Gate home temporarily to assist her elderly parents, asserting that her primary residence was still in Huntington Park.
Those assertions, however, did not prevent the council’s decision to remove her. Now, as a former councilmember, Castillo’s focus is on her court fight to regain her seat and clear her name.
City Pledges Transparency and Lawful Governance
Throughout this saga, the City of Huntington Park has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to following the law and being transparent with the public.
“Public integrity is of paramount importance and the City remains committed to upholding its laws with respect to the qualifications of its elected officials,” the City said in a statement last month, underscoring that enforcing the residency rule was a matter of principle.
City officials stress that their actions – from investigating the residency complaints to initiating the appointment process – have been guided by legal requirements, not personal or political motives. They have also tried to reassure residents that the loss of a councilmember will not leave the community without representation.
Even as the court’s stay has delayed filling the seat, the City is “ensuring continued representation for its residents” by moving forward with preparations to appoint a qualified replacement in line with the proper legal process.
When the vacancy was announced, the City invited interested Huntington Park residents to apply for the potential appointment, with the promise of an open selection process. That process is now on hold until the lawsuit is resolved. Still, officials say the situation has not derailed day-to-day governance; the remaining four council members (including Mayor Macias and Vice Mayor Flores) continue to conduct city business, and a quorum is maintained.
The City’s Communications Department has been regularly updating the public on the case, aiming to dispel rumors and keep the focus on facts. As the April court proceedings continue, residents of Huntington Park and surrounding communities are watching closely. The outcome will determine not only Castillo’s political fate but also serve as a test of the city’s adherence to its own principles of transparency and lawful governance in the eyes of the public.
