HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Information Received During Oral Communications - SB54My name is:
Close your eyes just a moment while I describe SB54 to you and what our little town of Seal
Beach is being subjected to
California has made up SB54 with full intent to stop police from doing their jobs correctly and
safely.
A criminal illegal alien moves to our little town of Seal Beach- a sanctuary city not fighting
California's illegal sanctuary state law. We have not heard of him already. He meets up with a
nice local girl and rapes her. Now — open your eyes He is rightfully arrested. He serves his
time and according to SB54 our police cannot legally report to ICE. He walks out the door and
melts in the community. ICE finds out about him and has to find a way to arrest and deport
him in any way they can. Doing so risks the lives of federal police and our local police, and
depending on where he is located — neighbors, businesses, schools, and family members. If by
chance he is caught in another criminal act, would not Seal Beach be complicit in their act?
Would you each not have the weight of guilt on your shoulders?
I have heard that you think this may be more money than what you want to spend. How can
Seal Beach continue to stand with laws made up by Sacramento that are against federal law?
You have several options which I will leave with you today including joining other cities in the
fight. Call Huntington Beach tomorrow and ask what it takes to join them. Call Los Alamitos
who found the money and have filed. It is too late to join Los Alamitos because there is a time
limit to join. Huntington Beach is looking for partners. Let us be their partner in doing right by
our citizens.
This act of putting criminal illegal aliens before US citizens needs to end now. Please join in
and do what is right for our community.
Hand over the paperwork I have.
Do you agree with the California bill barring state and local law agencies from helping federal immigration
enforcement?
Yes, California has a right to protect the people who live here regardless of their citizenship status.
22%
No, states should not be able to pick and choose when they will cooperate with the federal government.
77%
Total Votes: 4329
Read more here: hftp:/Iwww.sacbee.com/ news /politics- govemment/capdol-
alert/articlel42502974. htmt#storylink =cpy
Senate Bill 54 is at the center of a legislative package that Democratic lawmakers say is meant
to extend protections for immigrants under the expanded deportation priorities of the Trump
administration. It would prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies — including school police
and security — from using resources to investigate, detain, report or arrest people for immigration
enforcement.
New amendments to the bill added Thursday would allow sheriffs deputies to report the release
dates of serious and violent felons to ICE. The changes also clarified the language of the bill to allow
state and local law enforcement agencies to participate in task forces, even when immigration
enforcement becomes an element of the investigation.
And under the amended bill, law enforcement officers would be able to notify ICE if they come into
contact with a person who previously has been deported and has a violent felony record.
De Leon previously had kept from making distinctions for immigrants charged or convicted of
felonies, urging Republican lawmakers to move away from Trump's rhetoric, which he
said stereotyped immigrants as criminals.
But tensions Over the bill have flared as some sheriffs officials across the state have
denounced it, and as local law enforcement officials say its provisions could hinder their
participation in task forces involving federal immigration agencies
SUMMONS (°^�
(CITACION JUDICIAL) son °aaa use oeu wara7
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
*Additional Parties attached
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEFAANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a California charter city
NOTICE] You have been sued- The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Head me I11tonn3110n
below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served an you to fife a written response at this court and have a copy
served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
rase. There may be a court tone that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
Online Self -Help Center (www.corminfo.ca.gov/sefibelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask
the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on Gyre, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property
may be taken without further wamWQ from the coat.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may ward to rat an attorney
relenal service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locale
these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhetpcafifomia.org), the California Courts Onfine Self-Help Center
(wwwcourtinfo.ca.gov /selthe/p), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for warned fees and
costs on any settlement m arbitration award of $10,000 m more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the out will dismiss the case.
lAV1SOl Lo han demandado. Sin maporde denim de 30 dlas, la code paede deddben su corgra sou escucharsu versten. Lea la Wormac a a
confinuarx6n.
Tien 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO dwpu6s de qua le enbeguen ester cflaci6n y papeles legates pare presentar una respuesta pot escnto an isle
code y hacer qua se enbegue uns COPk al demai d ante. tho cata o una Uamada mlet6nica no b protegen. Su mspuesm tmrescrrto Lien qua esrar
en formsto legal correcto si dewa quo pmcesen su caw en la code. Es posfbte que hays un formularm qua usted pueda ussrpars su nespuesta.
Puede emontrarastm forrmdaryos de la code y m6s iniormaci6n an el Centro de Ayuda de las Codes de Caliromia (wwv.aucorm,ca.gov), an /a
biblloteca de /eyes de su condado o an /a code que k quede mas cerca. Si no puede pager Is cwta de prasentaci6n, plda al secretado da is torte
que le de car lormularfo de exencidn de pago de cuotw- Si no presents w mspuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso pot inumphimiento y la code te
podr6 quitar su weft, dinero y bkns sin mw advedenaa.
Hay ob0.s requisfos legates. Es recomendahk que Pane a un abogado inmediaamerim Si no conoce a un abogado, puede Ramer a un servicio de
remisidn a abogados. Sl no puede pagan a un abogado, w posible que curtpla can bs requisdos pare obfenerservicios kgalas gratudos de un
prograrna de servz ios legates = fines de lucro. Puede encoMmr esms grupos sbt fins de ludo an el sibo web de Caffbimm Legal Services,
(www.lawhelpcaltornW.org), an el Centro de, Ayuda de /as Cates de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poni6ndose an contacto con la cone o el
coleglo de abogados locales. A VISO: por ley, /a code Ilene demcho a reclamarks cuotas y los cosms exefdos porimponer un gravamen sobre
cuakudermcuperaci6n de $10,000 6 mss de vaW mcrbida medianle un acuerdo o un conceskIn de arb&* an un caw de derec o civil Tiene qn
pages at gravamen de la cork antes de que k code pueda desechar el caw.
The name and address of the court is:
(El nombre y direcci in de la torte es): Orange County Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
(El nombra, la direcci6n y el n0mem de tel6tono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante quo no bene abogado, es):
MICHAEL E. GATES, City Attorney, 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
DATE: April 5, 2018
(Facha)
Clerk, by
Iron prmr of servrce ur ores summons, use moor or wince m summons (corm rvs- u1u).)
(Para prueba de entrega de isle cita66n use el formutado Proof of Service of Summons, (PO"16
NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
1. as an individual defendant.
2. 0 as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
F, /dopaea k, mwd.wyU
u cmnrJmcarmma
SUM.1W[R 'J y1.=]
3, = on behalf of (specify):
Deputy
(Adjunto)
under. Q CCP 416.10 (corporation) CCP 416.60 (minor)
CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) Q CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
Q other (specify):
4- = by personal delivery on (date):
SUMMONS
coo. m W v,ormue 5§ H29o, ass
w.rw.muruea.oa.ga.
SUM-200(A)
SHORT TITLE: cuss wneaER'
City of Huntington Beach v. The State of California, et al.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE
This forth may be used as an attachment to any summons if space does not permit the listing of all parties on the summons.
-► If this attachment is used, insert the following statement in the plaintiff or defendant box on the summons: "Additional Parties
Attachment form is attached."
List additional parties (Check only one box. Use a separate page for each type of party):
Plaintiff Q Defendant Q Cross - Complainant Q Cross - Defendant
EDMUND GERALD BROWN JR-, Governor of California, in his Official Capacity;
XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General of California, in his Official Capacity, and,
DOES 1 through 20,
Page 2 of 2
�Ial
F0J.5.wc mf11Odb' ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT
a�ncaaaac"
sursanq,U IRmv Jason h. MM Attachment to Summons
CM-010
. ATTORNEYORPARTYWITHOUTATTORNEY (Nara,S earnevML" ad&&w.
MICHAEL E. GATES, City Attorney (SBN25)3446)
FORCOURTUSEd1LY
MICHAEL J.. VIGLI0ITA, Chief Assistant City Attorney (SBN,207630)
E]
2000 Main Street
ED
.Huntington Beach,. CA 92648
EInsurance
TElEPMOfIe NO.;. (714)536 -5555 FAX W: (714) -374 -1590
Q
ATroRNEY rue(Nma). Plaintiff City. of Huntington Beach
Real. Property.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
srREET AOOREss: 700 Civic. Center Drive West
.
uautic AorRaESs
0
cn - DzIPcour: Santa .Ana 9270.1
Q
' ..CA
aRArlerl W E:' Central Justice Center
Unlawful Defamer
CASE NAME:
City of Huntington Beach v. The State of California, et al.
Q
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
Complex Case Designation
Cher NOr R:
Unlimited Q .Limited
0 Counter Joinder
Asset forfeiture
(Amount - (Amount
-
Q
demanded demanded is
Filed with first appearance by defendant
-. exceeds 825,000) $25,000 or less)
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402)
oEPr:
Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page '2).
Check one box below. for the Case type,
Auto Tort
E Auto (22)
El llniruured motorist (46)motonst (46)
Other PlIP /Wel(Personal InjurylProperty
DamagalWrongful Death) Tort
Q - Asbestos(04)
Q .Product liability (24)
- Medical malpaidee (45)
0 09. PUPDIWD (23)
Business tonfunfair business practice (07)
Civil rights (08).
Defamation (13)
Fraud (16)
Intellectual Property (19)
Professional negligence (25)
Other non- PI/PD/WD tort (35)
Wrongful termination (36)
Contract
E✓
Breach of oontacttvrarranty, (06)
E]
Rule 3.740 Collections (09)
ED
Other. collections (09).
EInsurance
coverage (18)
Q
Other contract (37)
Real. Property.
0
Eminent domain/Inverse
condemnation (14)
0
Wrongful eviction (33)
Q
Other real property (26)
Unlawful Defamer
0
Commercial (31)
Q
Residential (K)
Q
Drugs (38)
Judicial Review
Q-
Asset forfeiture
0
Petition re: arbitration award (11)
Q
writ of mandate (02)
This case Llis Lv!Jisnot complex under rule:
factors requiring exceptional judicial management
a. ED Large number of separately represented parties
b:.0 Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve
-c. Substantial amount of documentary evidence
review I
I of the
AntihusUrrade- regulation (03)
Construction defect (10)
Mass tort (40)
Securities litigation (28)
EnvironmentaiROxictort (30)
insurance Coverage Claim arising from the
above listed provisionally complex case
types (41) .
Enforcement of Judgment
Enforcement of )udgmerr (20)
Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
RICO (27)
Q Other complaint (net specified above).(42)
Miscellaneous Civil Petition
Q Partnership and corporate govemance.(21).
Other petition (pot specified above) (43)
If- the .case is
d. Large number of witnesses
e: Coordination with:related actions pending in one or more courts
in other counties; states, . or munines' or in :a federal court
I. Q Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
3. Remedies sought (check all that apply):. a;0 monetary b. Q`nonmonetary; declaratory orinjunctive relief c 0 punitive
4. Number of causes of action (specify): Three: Writ of Mandamus;. Declaratory Relief; Injunctive Relief
5. This Case 0 is [E is not a class - action suit. _
6. if, ca
there are. any known related; ses,: file and serve a notice of. related case..(You may use _ --0 --4
Date: April 5, 2018
MICHAEL E. GA7
• Plaintiff must - file.this cover sheet with the first paper filed In the action or pr6ceeding (except small claims cases or cases fled
under the Probate Code,: Family Code,.or Welfare and Institutions Cod (Cal. Rules of Court, -rule 1220.),Fadure to file may result
in sanctions:
• File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required - bylocal court rule.
• If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must Serve a copy of this cover sheet on all
other parties to the action or proceeding.
• Unless this is a Collections case under rule 3.740 or a Complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only
B CIVIL
2
0
0
HE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MICHAEL E. GATES, City Attorney (SBN 258446)
MICHAEL J. VIGLIOTTA, Chief Asst. City Attorney (SBN 207630)
2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Tel: (714) 536 -5555; Fax: (714) 374 -1590
Email: Michael.Gates @surfcity- hb.org
Email: mvigliottanasurfeity- hb.orR
Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff,
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
(Exempt from filing fees pursuant
To Government Code Section 6103)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a California
Charter City,
Petitioner/Plaintiff,
VS.
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; EDMUND
GERALD BROWN JR., Governor of California,
in his Official Capacity; XAVIER BECERRA,
Attorney General of California, in his Official
Capacity, and, DOES 1 through 20,
Respondents/Defendants.
CASE NO.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND A COMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CCP §§ 1085,
1060, 525 etseq.)
This Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Injunctive
Relief ( "Petition/Complaint ") is brought by Petitioner/Plaintiff, the City of Huntington Beach
( "City ").
This Petition/Complaint is directed to and against Defendants and Respondents, State of
California ( "State "), Edmund G. Brown Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of the State of
California ( "Governor "), and Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California, in his official
capacity as the Attorney General of the State of California ( "Attorney General'.
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
1111
I1
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The City alleges as follows:
I. PARTIES
1. Petitioner/Plaintiff, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ( "City "), is and at all
relevant times has been a Charter City organized and existing under a freeholder's charter and
exercising local control and authority over its municipal affairs, including without limitation the
investment and expenditure of the City's funds, and the provision of a Police Department as
authorized by Article XI, § 5 of the California Constitution.
2. RespondentlDefendant, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ( "State "), is and at all relevant
times has been a sovereign State.
3. Respondent/Defendant, EDMUND G. BROWN ( "Govemor"), is and at all relevant
times has been the Governor of the State of California. He is being sued in his official capacity as
Governor of the State of California.
4. Respondent/Defendant, XAVIER BECERRA ("Attorney General "), is and at all
relevant times was the Attorney General of the State of California. He is being sued in his official
capacity as Attorney General of the State of California.
5. Unless noted otherwise, the City hereinafter refers to the State, Governor and
Attorney General collectively as "Respondents/Defendants."
6. The City does not know of the true names and capacities of those
Defendants/Respondents sued herein as DOES i through 20, inclusive, and therefore sues those
Defendants/Respondents by such fictitious names. The City will amend this Petition/Complaint to
allege the true names and capacities of these fictitiously named Defendants/Respondents when the
same have been ascertained.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. Jurisdiction and venue lie in the Superior Court of the County of Orange pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1060 and 1085.
tj
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
2
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
III.
8. The California Legislature enacted and the Governor signed into law, Senate Bill
54, entitled the "California Values Act" (hereinafter referred to as "SB 54 "). SB 54 expressly
precludes State and local law enforcement agencies, such as the City of Huntington Beach Police
Department from using City funds and participating in certain Federal immigration enforcement
activities thereto.
9. According to the law, SB 54 applies to all cities in California.
10. Through this Petition/Complaint, the City seeks to invalidate the unconstitutional
mandates of SB 54 that impermissibly strip the City's constitutionally protected Charter authority
with respect to local "municipal affairs." Immigration and naturalization is within the exclusive
purview of the Federal Government and therefore is not and cannot be a matter of Statewide
concern.
11. SB 54 unconstitutionally interferes with the City's Charter authority to enforce
local laws and regulations, including the receipt and expenditure of the City's revenues, operation
of the City Police Department, as well as interfering with the City's ability to contract with the
Federal Government and elected officials' duty to carry out their respective oaths of office.
12. The City seeks a Writ of Mandamus prohibiting the State, Governor and Attorney
General from enforcing SB 54 against the City. In addition, as a corollary legal theory, the City
seeks Declaratory Relief as well as Injunctive Relief by way of a Preliminary and Permanent
Injunction to preclude the State from enforcing the unconstitutional mandates of SB 54.
13. The City is excused from exhausting any available administrative remedies it may
have since the State, Governor, and Attorney General have unequivocally determined on multiple
occasions that they will not cease enforcing SB 54. Accordingly, exhausting administrative
remedies would be a futile act.
IV. FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW
14. The Federal Government's control over immigration and naturalization derives
from the Commerce Clause (U.S. Const. Art. I § 8, cl. 3), and related constitutional authorities
concerning foreign relations, and its power to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization."
LIZA31u1
RELIEF
4
Gi
W
IN,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(U.S. Const. Art. 1, § 8, cl. 4.) Authority to regulate immigration and matters concerning aliens
in or seeking to enter the United States is vested with the Federal Government. Control of
immigration is a "fundamental sovereign attribute."
15. The U.S. Constitution assigns responsibility for the regulation of immigration to
the Federal Government because immigration concerns aspects of the Country's external relations
with other countries. (Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275, 280 (1875).)
16. The primary means by which the Federal Government exercises the authority for
administering and enforcing immigration policy is through the Immigration and Nationality Act
( "INA "). The INA established a `comprehensive Federal statutory scheme for regulation of
immigration and naturalization' and set `the terms and conditions of admission to the country
and the subsequent treatment of aliens lawfully in the country.' The United States Supreme
Court has described the INA as a comprehensive and complete code covering all aspects of
admission of aliens to this country. (Elkins v. Moreno (1978) 435 U.S. 647, 664.)
17. The Department of Homeland Security ( "DHS ") is the regulatory agency tasked
with the statutory and regulatory authority over immigration and naturalization matters. The
Federal Government has determined that the DHS is uniquely situated to interpret the INA and
determine what actions assist and what actions undermine its efforts-
18. The DHS has enlisted the services, communication, support and cooperation of
State and local governments to assist Federal immigration enforcement officers with regard to
enforcement of certain aspects of the INA.
19. The City is informed and believes that the services, communication, support and
cooperation between the City and DHS is found in informal, flexible situations where the Police
Department assist Federal authorities with issues related to immigration enforcement that arise
through their routine local law enforcement duties.]
Congress has expliditly authorized State and local law enforcement officers to participate in
enforcement actions in specified circumstances. (8 USC § 1324(c) (providing that arrests for
violation of the INA's criminal prohibitions against smuggling, transporting or harboring aliens
may be made not only by Federal immigration officers, but also by "all other officers whose duty
it is to enforce criminal laws ")); (8 USC §1252(c) (authorizing State and local law enforcement
4
PETITION FOR WRIT
RELIEF
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20. The INA provides that notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or
local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local
government entity from doing any of the following with respect to the immigration status, lawful
or unlawful, of any individual: (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such
information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service; and (2) Maintaining such
information; (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government
entity. (8 USC § 1373.)
21. In addition, under the INA, an officer or employee of a State or political
subdivision of a State may, without a written agreement with the DHS, "cooperate with the
[Secretary) in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully
present in the United States." (8 USC § 1357(g)(10)(B).)
22. The INA's "cooperation" requirement means that a State or local government may
not adopt its own mandatory set of directives to implement the State's own enforcement policies,
because such a mandate would serve as an obstacle to the ability of individual State and local
officers to cooperate with Federal officers administering Federal policies and discretion as the
circumstances require.
23. The INA provides that notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State or
local law, a federal, State or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way
restrict any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from Immigration and
Customs Enforcement ( "ICE ") information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful
or unlawful of any individual. (8 USC § 1373(a).)
24. The INA provides that notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or
local law, a local official may not be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or
officials to arrest aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States and were previously
removed after being convicted of a felony but only if they have confirmed the status of such
aliens with ICE).)
PETITION FOR WRIT
AND
5
RELIEF
TORY
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
receiving from the ICE information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an
alien in the United States. (8 USC § 1644)
V. SB 54, THE CALIFORNIA VALUES ACT
25. SB 54 restricts State and local law enforcement agencies such as the City of
Huntington Beach Police Department from using City revenue or City personnel to assist,
communicate and/or cooperate in the enforcement of Federal Immigration and Naturalization
laws. The restrictions of SB 54 include: a) Inquiring into an individual's immigration status; b)
Detaining a person based on a hold request from ICE; c) Arresting a person based on a civil
immigration warrant; d) Participating in any agreements or any program that deputizes police as
immigration agents; e) Participating in border patrol activities, including warrantless searches;
and, f) Using ICE agents as interpreters. (California Government Code § 7284.6)
26. SB 54 expressly provides that: California law enforcement agencies shall not:
(1) Use agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or
arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including any of the following:
(A) Inquiring into an individual's immigration status; (B) Detaining an individual on the basis of a
hold request; (C) Providing information regarding a person's release date or responding to
requests for notification by providing release dates or other information unless that information is
available to the public, or is in response to a notification request from immigration authorities in
accordance with Section 7282.5. Responses are never required, but are permitted under this
subdivision, provided that they do not violate any local law or policy; (D) Providing personal
information, as defined in Section 1798.3 of the Civil Code, about an individual, including, but no
limited to, the individual's home address or work address unless that information is available to
the public; (E) Making or intentionally participating in arrests based on civil immigration
warrants; (F) Assisting immigration authorities in the activities described in Section 1357(a)(3) of
Title 8 of the United States Code; and (G) Performing the functions of an immigration officer,
whether pursuant to Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code or any other law,
regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal. (California Government Code §7284.6 (a) (1).)
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
RELIEF
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27. SB 54 creates "safe zones" in Cities for immigrants by requiring that State,
County, and City assets and resources such as the City's public schools, public libraries,
courthouses, and health facilities must implement pre- approved policies or equivalent regulations
approved by the State. The City owns and operates many libraries and schools, which are now
required pursuant to SB 54 to comply with the policy established by the State. (California
Government Code §7284.8.)
28. SB 54 mandates that when the City is participating in a joint law enforcement task
force, it is required to submit a report every six months to the State Department of Justice
describing the types and frequency of arrests made by the task force.
29, SB 54 mandates that local law enforcement officers are allowed to contact and
transfer people to ICE, only with a judicial warrant. (California Government Code § 7284.6(G)
(4)•)
VI. SB 54 VIOLATES THE "MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS DOCTRINE"
30. Section 5(a) of Article XI of the California Constitution provides that a Charter
City shall not be governed by State law in respect to "municipal affairs." Rather, "so far as
`municipal affairs' are concerned," Charter Cities laws are "supreme and beyond the reach of
[State] legislative enactment." (California Fed Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles
(1991) 54 Ca1.3d 1, 12.)
31. How the City spends its money is a core function of local government and a
"municipal affair" of a Charter City. `[W]e can think of nothing that is of greater municipal
concern than how a city's tax dollars will be spent; nor anything which could be of less interest to
taxpayers of other jurisdictions. "' (Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, 407.) The California
courts have consistently classified how a city spends its tax dollars as a "municipal affair."
32. "Municipal affairs" or the "Municipal Affairs Doctrine"' is a California
Constitutional grant of power to Cities that allows Charter Cities to provide for the regulation of
2 The California Constitution provides no definition of "municipal affair." However, generations
legislative enactments and judicial interpretations provide that a Charter City is authorized to ma
and enforce all local laws and regulations not in conflict with general State laws and to be free fn
State legislation delegating to a private person or body control over city property, funds, tax lev.
7
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND
RELIEF
DECLARATORY AND
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the "city police force;" "sub - govemment in all or part of a city;" "conduct of city elections;" and
"the manner in which ... municipal officers [are] elected." (California Constitution, Art. XI, §
5(b))
33. Section 5(b) of Article XI of the California Constitution specifically allows for
I Charter Cities to provide for "the regulation and governance of a city police force." (Brown v.
City of Berkeley (1976), 57 Cal. App. 3d223.)
34. Pursuant to the California Constitution, and the City's Charter, decades ago the
City established a Police Department delegating authority to the Police Chief to administer the
duties and functions of the Department, as well as the City jail and its prisoners. (Huntington
Beach Municipal Code §§ 2.24.010, 2.24.040.)
35. SB 54 unconstitutionally violates the "Municipal Affairs Doctrine," the City
Charter and the City's Municipal Code by prohibiting the City `from using (City) money or [City
Police] personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration
enforcement purposes." (California Government Code § 7284.6(ax1).)
36. SB 54 also unconstitutionally mandates the City use its funds, City assets and City
personnel to create "safe zones" throughout the City for immigrants by requiring the City's public
schools, public libraries, courthouses, and health facilities operated by State or local government
to implement Respondent/Defendant Attorney General, pre- approved policies or equivalent
regulations. The City owns and operates many libraries and schools, which are subject to SB 54.
(California Government Code §7284.8.)
37. SB 54 also unconstitutionally mandates the City use its funds and City personnel
to submit a report every six months to the State Department of Justice describing the types and
frequency of arrests made by any immigration task force in which the City participates.
38. SB 54 also unconstitutionally mandates how the City's Police Department
operates with regard to the investigation, interrogation, detention, detection, or arrest persons for
immigration enforcement purposes.
and municipal functions.
FOR
AND
91
RELIEF
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
39. 8 USC § 1373 mandates that "a Federal, State, or local government entity or
official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to,
or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the
citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual" SB 54
unconstitutionally eviscerates the requirement and historical practice that State and local
governments "cooperate" and communicate with the Federal Government.
40. State governments do not have authority to directly regulate aliens and
immigration, including the State determining enforcement priorities for the apprehension,
detention, and removal of aliens, which aliens may be admitted to or remain in the United States.
41. Congress expressly prohibits any Federal, State, or local government entity or
official from prohibiting, or in any way restricting, any government entity or official from sending
to, or receiving from, DHS "information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of an
individual," (8 USC § 1373(a); also 8 USC § 1644.)
42. SB 54 at Government Code § 7284.6(a)(1)(C) and (D), expressly forbids the
sharing of information covered by 8 USC § 1373.
43. SB 54 unconstitutionally limits communication and collaboration between the City
of Huntington Beach and Federal immigration enforcement agencies. (California Government
Code § 7284.6(G) (4).)
VII. SB 54 IMPERMISSIBLY INTENTIONALLY INTERFERES WITH THE
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AND THE CITY
44. Intentional interference with the performance of a contract requires that a valid
contract exist, knowledge of the contract and intentional acts designed to induce a breach or
disruption of the contractual relationship that actually takes place and damages. (Asahi Kasei
Pharma Corp. v. Actelion Ltd., (2013) 222 Cal. App. 4th 945.)
45. The INA allows State and local officers to participate in certain aspects of the
enforcement of immigration laws outside of a formal written agreement, through formal or
informal "cooperation." (8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10).)
N
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
N
10
Il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
46. The INA states that formal agreements are not required for any officer or employee
of a State or political subdivision of a State to communicate with the Secretary regarding the
immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not
lawfully present in the United States; or otherwise to cooperate with the Secretary in the
identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United
States.
47. The assistance of State and local law enforcement personnel is contemplated via
implied contract (i.e., outside of the written agreements) such as through the Criminal Alien
Program, Fugitive Operations Task Forces, and Operation Community Shield. Moreover, State
and local law enforcement officers render assistance to DHS on a case -by -case basis as
immigration matters come to their attention in the performance of their regular duties under State
or local law.
48. SB 54 specifically precludes the cooperation of local law enforcement with regard
to aspects of reporting criminal activity of aliens. SB 54 by its language impairs the contractual
relationships between the Federal Government and local agencies with respect to the implied
agreements the City of Huntington Beach has to communicate with the Secretary regarding the
immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not
lawfully present in the United States; or otherwise to cooperate with the Secretary in the
identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United
States.
49. The City is informed and believes that it currently has applied for and received
Federal grant funds whereby the use of said funds is tied to the compliance with all Federal Laws.
The Federal grants are awarded pursuant to a "grant agreement' between the City and the Federal
Government. SB 54 causes the City to be in breach of the terms of said grant agreements.
SB 54.
50. This express and implied contractual relationship is impaired by the enactment of
10
RELIEF
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(WRIT OF MANDAMUS- FAILURE TO ACT CONSISTENTLY WITH
ARTICLE XI, SECTION 5 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, AND
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AGAINST
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY THE STATE,
GOVERNOR, AND ATTORNEY GENERAL)
51, The City hereby re- alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -50 of this
Petition/Complaint.
52. Respondents/Defendants have a clear, present, and ministerial duty to administer
the U.S. and California Constitution and laws of the State of California, including SB 54 without
violating the Charter City provisions of Article X1, § 5 of the California Constitution.
53. Respondents'/Defendants' actions by the enactment of SB 54 ignore, undermine,
stamp out, and usurp the City's rights as a Charter City under the Municipal Affairs Doctrine to
control the expenditure of its own local funds and City assets, as well as exercise Charter City
authority to establish and provide for a law enforcement activities which offends the California
Constitutional grant of power to Charter Cities. (Cal. Const. Article X1, §5.) This right
belonging to the City to control the use and expenditure of municipal revenue has been
consistently recognized by the California Supreme Court as a right that is "quintessentially a
municipal affair." (State Building and Construction Trades Council of California (2012) 54
Cal.4th 547, 559.)
54. Unless restrained, Respondents' /Defendants' actions will mandate policies of the
City's Police Department, which in addition to violating the Municipal Affairs Doctrine, violates
the United States Constitution, by determining enforcement priorities for the apprehension,
detention, and removal of aliens, which aliens may be admitted to the United States or by setting
the terms and conditions under which those aliens may remain pursuant to SB 54, rather than in
compliance with Federal law.
11/
11
OF MANDAMUS AND COMPL?
RELIEF
AND
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
55. Respondents/Defendants have a clear, present, and ministerial duty to administer
the California Constitution and laws of the State of California, including SB 54, without
interfering with the City's existing contractual relationships.
56. Respondents'/Defendants' actions by the enactment of SB 54 ignore, undermine,
stamp out and usurp the City's existing and future contractual obligations to the Federal
government.
57. Absent a Writ of Mandamus to compel Respondents/Defendants to comply with
their ministerial duty to follow the California Constitution, and allow the City to fulfill existing
contracts with the Federal Government, Petitioner City would be rendered incapable of fulfilling
its responsibilities as a Charter City under Federal law.
58. The City is beneficially interested in Respondents'/Defendants' performance of
their ministerial duties in compliance with, and respect for the Charter City provisions of the
California Constitution, as well as well as the California prohibition on intentional interference
with contract and have no adequate remedy at law to redress the constitutional and statutory
violations described above other than issuance of a Writ of Mandamus. The City seeks a Petition
for Writ of Mandamus to compel Respondents/Defendants to immediately comply with their
mandatory statutory duties and to refrain from violating the statutory provisions set forth herein.
Wherefore, the City prays for a Writ of Mandamus as set forth below.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(DECLARATORY RELIEF- FAILURE TO ACT CONSISTENTLY WITH ARTICLE XI,
SECTION 5 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, AND INTENTIONAL
INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AGAINST RESPONDENTSIDEFENDANTS
INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY THE STATE, GOVERNOR, AND
GENERAL)
59. The City hereby re- alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -58 of this
Petition/Complaint.
60. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the City and
Respondents/Defendants concerning their respective rights and duties under the SB 54, including
FOR
UM
12
RELIEF
DECLARA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
but not limited to the City's rights as a Charter City pursuant to the Municipal Affairs Doctrine
to control the expenditure of its own local funds and City assets, as well as exercise Charter City
authority to establish and provide for a law enforcement activities pursuant to the California
Constitutional Municipal Affairs authority of Charter Cities.
61. Declaratory Relief is necessary to recognize the well - established principal of
Municipal Affairs authority such that the City may ascertain its rights and duties to control the
expenditure of its revenues as well as the management and control of its Police Department
without being subjected to liability for violation of SB 54.
62. Respondents/Defendants have a clear, present, and ministerial duty to administer
the California Constitution and laws of the State of California, including SB 54, without
violating California prohibition against intentional interference with contract. The is informed
and believes it has existing contractual relationships with the Federal Government that are
impaired by the enactment and enforcement of the mandates of SB 54,
63. Declaratory Relief is necessary to recognize the well - established principal that a
third party may not intentionally interfere with the contractual relationship between the City and
the Federal Government.
64. A judicial declaration and determination is necessary at this time so that the City
may ascertain its rights with respect to Respondents' /Defendants' duties and obligations pursuant
to the California Constitution and California contract law and in order to resolve all controversies
between the parties hereto regarding such rights and duties.
65. Without a Declaratory Relief reversing the determinations and actions
Respondents have taken regarding the enforcement of SB 54, the City will be unable to exercise
its discretion in managing its municipal finances, preform existing contracts with the Federal
Government and comply with Federal law, and exercise its discretion regarding law enforcement
in the City. Wherefore, the City prays for Declaratory Relief, as set forth below.
66. The failure of Respondents/Defendants to recognize that the policies of the City
regarding enforcement of Federal Immigration laws is a "Municipal Affair" protected under
Article XI, § 5 of the California Constitution against State interference, including through SB 54,
13
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
as well as failure to recognize the principles of intentional interference with contract is arbitrary
and capricious and entitles City to an award of attorney's fees under California Government
Code § 800.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- FAILURE TO ACT CONSISTENTLY WITH ARTICLE XI,
SECTION 5 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, AND INTENTIONAL
INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AGAINST RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY THE STATE, GOVERNOR, AND ATTORNEY
GENERAL)
67. The City hereby re- alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -66 of this
Petition/Complaint.
68. Respondents/Defendants have a clear, present, and ministerial duty to administer
the Constitution and laws of the State of California, including SB 54 without violating the
Charter City provisions of Article X1, § 5 of the California Constitution.
69. Respondents/Defendants have a clear, present, and ministerial duty to refrain from
impairing existing City contractual relationship with the Federal Government in enacting and
administering SB 54.
70. Respondents' /Defendants' actions by the enactment of SB 54 ignore, undermine,
stamp out and usurp the City's rights as a Charter City to control the expenditure of its own local
funds as well as City law enforcement activities which offends the California Constitutional
Municipal Affairs authority of Charter Cities. (Cal. Const. Article XI, §5.) This right belonging
to the City to control the use and expenditure of municipal revenue has been consistently
recognized by the California Supreme Court as a right that is "quintessentially a municipal
affair." (State Building and Construction Trades Council of California (2012) 54 Cal.4th 547,
559.)
71. Unless restrained, Respondents'/Defendants' actions will mandate policies of the
City's Police Department, which in addition to violating the Municipal Affairs Doctrine, violates
the United States Constitution, by determining enforcement priorities for the apprehension,
14
RELIEF
HE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
detention, and removal of aliens, which aliens may be admitted to the United States or by setting
the terms and conditions under which those aliens may remain pursuant to SB 54, rather than in
compliance with Federal law
72. Respondents'/Defendants' actions by the enactment of SB 54 ignore, undermine,
stamp out and usurp the rule of law that a party may not intentionally interfere with contractual
relationships.
73. The City request equitable relief in the form of an Injunction because the general
public including citizens of Huntington Beach and its Police Department will suffer irreparable
injury if Respondents' /Defendants' enactment and enforcement of SB 54 is not immediately set
aside and enjoined. Respondents/Defendants have adopted and are implementing the mandates of
SB 54 as described herein, and if Respondents/Defendants are not immediately enjoined from
taking further actions to implement SB 54 pending resolution of this lawsuit on its merits this
irreparable injury will continue. The public interest warrants the issuance of Preliminary and
Permanent Injunctions requested by the City.
74. Injunctive Relief is necessary to protect the rights of the City, and this Court
should issue interim relief and a permanent injunction restraining and enjoining
Respondents/Defendants from enforcing SB 54 against the City.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Petitioner/Plaintiffrespectfully prays for judgment as follows:
On the City's First Cause of Action, for issuance of an alternative and peremptory
Writ of Mandamus that commands and compels Respondents/Defendants to comply with their
respective mandatory and ministerial duties with respect to the City's claims raised in this action,
including without limitation that Respondents not enforce SB 54 against the City and comply with
Article XI, § 5 of the California Constitution, as well complying with the prohibition against
interfering with existing contractual relationships the City has with the Federal Government; and
2. On the City's Second Cause of Action, for a Judicial Declaration that SB 54 is
unconstitutional and therefore invalid as preempted by Article XI, § 5 of the California
15
RELIEF
7
8
9
[III
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
WE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Constitution as well as the State law prohibition against intentionally interfering with the City's
contractual relationship with the Federal Government; and
3. On the City's Third Cause of action for Injunctive Relief that
Respondents/Defendants. be enjoined from enforcing SB 54 against the City of Huntington Beach.
4. For attorneys fees' and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5;
Government Code §800, and as may otherwise be permitted by law; and
5. For such other and further relief as the Court just and.proper.
DATED: April, 2018 MICHAEL E. GATES, City Attorney
1L.E. GATES, City Attorney
for Petitioner /Plaintiff
HUNUNGTON BEACH
16
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE-