2 }

Sterling E. Norris, Esq. (SBN 40993) JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 2540 Huntington Drive, Suite 20 I San Marino, CA 91108 Tel.: (626) 287-4540 Fax: (626) 237-2003

Attorneys for Plaintiff

5
6
7

8
9 10

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

11
HAROLD P. STURGEON, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff,

v.
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation; RICHARD E. DROOYAN, in his official capacity as President of the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners; JOHN A. MACK, in his official capacity as Vice President of the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners; ROBERT M. SALTZMAN, in his official capacity as a member of the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners; ALAN J. SKOBIN, in his official capacity as a member of the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners; and DEBRA WONG YANG, in her official capacity as a member of the Board of Police Commissioners; and CHARLIE BECK, in his official capacity as Chief of Police of the Los Angeles Police Department, and Defendants.

) Case No. ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF )

) Assigned to: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

BC484190

) )

----------)

Page 1

INTRODUCTION

2
3
4

1.

Plaintiff, a taxpayer and resident of the City of Los Angeles, seeks to enj oin Defendants

from expending taxpayer funds or taxpayer-financed resources to implement, enforce, maintain, or otherwise carry out the provisions of Special Order 7, which was issued by the Los Angeles Police Department ("LAPD") on April 10, 2012 and which became effective on Apri122, 2012. Plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgment that Special Order 7 is preempted by article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution and California Vehicle Code 21, and therefore is unlawful and void.

5
6 7 8 9 10
11

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.

Jurisdiction in this case is found under California Code of Civil Procedure 526(a),

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

which provides as follows: An action to obtain a judgment, restraining and preventing any illegal expenditure of, waste of, or injury to, the estate, funds, or other property of a county, town, city or city and county of the state, may be maintained against any officer thereof, or any agent, or other person, acting in its behalf, either by a citizen resident therein, or by a corporation, who is assessed for and is liable to pay, or, within one year before the commencement of the action, has paid, a tax therein. 3. In Blair v. Pitchess, 5 Cal.3d 258, 267-68, 96 Cal. Rptr. 42, 48-49 (1971), the Supreme

Court of California stated that "[t]he primary purpose of this statute [Section 526a], originally enacted in 1909, is to 'enable a large body of the citizenry to challenge governmental action which would otherwise

21

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

go unchallenged in the courts because of the standing requirement' [citations omitted]."

4.

In Blair, 5 Cal.3d at 268,96 Cal. Rptr. at 49, the Supreme Court of California also

declared that "the mere expending [of] the time of the paid police officers of the city of Los Angeles in performing illegal and unauthorized acts constitute[s] an unlawful use of funds which could be enjoined under section 526a." The Court also declared that "it is immaterial that the amount of the illegal expenditures is small or that the illegal procedures actually permit a savings of tax funds." Id.
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 2

PARTIES
5. Plaintiff Harold P. Sturgeon is a resident and taxpayer of the City of Los Angeles.

2
3
4

Plaintiff has paid taxes to the City of Los Angeles in the one-year period prior to commencement of this action. 6. Defendant City of Los Angeles is a municipal corporation organized and existing under

5 6
7

the laws of the State of California. 7. Defendant Richard E. Drooyan is the President of the Los Angeles Board of Police

8 9
10
11

Commissioners ("Board of Commissioners"). Defendant Drooyan is being sued in his official capacity. 8. Defendant John Mack is the Vice President of the Board of Commissioners. Defendant

12 13

Mack is being sued in his official capacity. 9. Defendant Robert M. Saltzman is member of the Board of Commissioners. Defendant

14

15
16

Saltzman is being sued in his official capacity. 10. Defendant Alan J. Skobin is a member of the Board of Police Commissioners. Defendant

17
18 19

Skobin is being sued in his official capacity. 11. Defendant Debra Wong Yang is a member of the Board of Police Commissioners.

20
21

Defendant Yang is being sued in her official capacity. 12. Defendant Charlie Beck is the Chief of Police ofthe LAPD. Defendant Beck is being

22
23 24 25

sued in his official capacity.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
13. The Charter of Defendant City of Los Angeles establishes the LAPD to "enforce the

26 27
28

penal provisions of the Charter, City ordinances and state and federal law" and specifies that "members of the department shall have the powers and duties of peace officers as defined by state law." These

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 3

powers and duties include enforcement of the California Vehicle Code and enactments respecting the regulation and control of motor vehicles in the City of Los Angeles. 14. Under the Charter of Defendant City of Los Angeles, the head of the LAPD is the Board

2
3
4

5 6 7
8

of Commissioners, which has "the power to make and enforce all rules and regulations necessary for the exercise of the powers conferred upon the department by the Charter." 15. Also under the Charter of Defendant City of Los Angeles, the chief administrative officer

9 10
11

of the LAPD is the Chief of Police, who manages the daily operations of the LAPD and implements the policies, policy directions, and goals of the Board of Commissioners. 16. On or about April 10, 2012, Defendant Beck issued Special Order 7, entitled the

12

"Community Caretaking Doctrine and Vehicle Impound Procedures - Established." Special Order 7 purports to regulate the impounding of vehicles in the City of Los Angeles by "establish[ing] the procedures for impounding vehicles from unlicensed drivers, and drivers with suspended or revoked licenses in the field, at the scene of traffic collisions and at driving under the influence (DUI) checkpoints." 17. Special Order 7 had been approved by the Board of Commissioners on or about February

13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

28,2012 and became effective on April 22, 2012. A true and correct copy of Special Order 7 is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. 18. On information and belief, Defendant City of Los Angeles, by and through the LAPD and

22
23 24 25 26 27

Defendants Drooyan, Mack, Saltzman, Skobin, Yang, and Beck, has expended substantial taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources enacting Special Order 7 and will continue to expend substantial taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources to implement, enforce, maintain, and otherwise carry out the provisions of Special Order 7. In this regard, LAPD officers are instructed in a general fashion on all

28
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 4

1
2
3

LAPD policies, practices, and procedures, including Special Order 7, and are required to maintain and enforce all LAPD policies, practices, and procedures, including Special Order 7. 19. Prior to the issuance of Special Order 7, the State of California had enacted a complex,

4 5 6 7

comprehensive statutory scheme governing the impounding of vehicles, which has been incorporated into the California Vehicle Code. Relevant provisions in the California Vehicle Code governing the impounding of vehicles include California Vehicle Code 22651, 22655.5,14602.6, and 14607.6. 20. Pursuant to article Xl, section 7 of the California Constitution and California Vehicle

9
10

Code 21, a local government has no authority to regulate or control any matter covered by the California Vehicle Code unless such authority is expressly granted by the State of California. 21. Because the provisions of Special Order 7 are not within the purview of any express

11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

authorization granted by the State of California, Defendants City of Los Angeles, Drooyan, Mack, Saltzman, Skobin, Yang, and Beck were without authority to enact Special Order 7, and consequently, Special Order 7 is unlawful and void. 22. In addition, Special Order 7 also is unlawful and void to the extent that its provisions

conflict with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code, including California Vehicle Code 14602.6 and 14607.6 governing the impounding of vehicles driven by unlicensed drivers. 23. On information and belief, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which is a

recognized employee organization that represents the police officers, police detectives, sergeants, and 23 24 25 26 27 28
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

lieutenants employed by Defendant City of Los Angeles with regard to all matters concerning wages, hours, and work conditions, demanded that Defendant City of Los Angeles refrain from implementing Special Order 7, but Defendant City of Los Angeles declined to do so.

Page 5

I 2 3
4

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

24. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs I to 23 by reference as if fully set forth herein and

further alleges as follows: 25. An actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff, on the

5
6
7 8

one hand, and Defendants, on the other hand, as to whether Defendants possess lawful authority to issue Special Order 7 and whether the provisions of Special Order 7 conflict with the provisions ofthe California Vehicle Code, including California Vehicle Code 14602.6 and 14607.6, governing the impounding of vehicles driven by unlicensed drivers. Plaintiff contends that Defendants were without lawful authority to issue Special Order 7 and that the provisions of Special Order 7 conflict with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code, including California Vehicle Code 14602.6 and 14607.6. Defendants contend that they possess lawful authority to issue Special Order 7 and its provisions do not conflict with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code, including California Vehicle Code 14602.6 and 14607.6. 26. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 1060, Plaintiff seeks a judicial

9
10
II

12 13 14

IS
16 17 18 19 20 21 22

determination as to whether Defendants possess lawful authority to issue Special Order 7 and whether the provisions of Special Order 7 conflict with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code, including California Vehicle Code 14602.6 and 14607.6, governing the impounding of vehicles driven by unlicensed drivers.

23 24 25 26 27 27. Such a judicial determination is necessary and appropriate so that the parties may

ascertain their respective legal rights and duties where Defendants have expended substantial taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources enacting Special Order 7 and will continue to expend substantial

28
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 6

taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources to implement, enforce, maintain, and otherwise carry out the provisions of Special Order 7. 28. sought herein. There are no effective administrative remedies available to Plaintiffto compel the relief

2
3
4

6
7 29.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 to 28 by reference as if fully set forth herein and

9
10
11

further alleges as follows: 30. Unless and until enjoined by this Court, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting

Defendants from expending taxpayer funds or taxpayer-financed resources, including their own time or the time of other LAPD officers, employees, or officials, to enforce, maintain, or otherwise carry out Special Order 7 and the policies, procedures, and practices arising thereunder as implemented by the LAPD.

12 13

14
15 16 17 18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:

19
20 21 1. 2. 3.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

A declaration that Special Order 7 is unlawful and void; Costs of suit herein; Reasonable attorney's fees under the Private Attorney General Statute, Code of Civil

22
23
24 25

Procedure 1021.5, the Common Fund Doctrine, and the Substantial Benefit Doctrine; and 4. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

26
27
28
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Page 7

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1
The Court issue permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from expending

2
3

4
5 6

taxpayer funds or taxpayer-financed resources, including their own time or the time of other LAPD officers, employees, or officials, to enforce, maintain, or otherwise carry out Special Order 7;

3. 4.

Costs of suit herein; Reasonable attorney's fees under the Private Attorney General Statute, Code of Civil

7
8

9
10

Procedure 1021.5, the Common Fund Doctrine, and the Substantial Benefit Doctrine; and 5. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

11
12

DATED: May~, 2012 By: Sterling JUDI L WATCH, INC. 254 Huntington Drive, Suite 201 San Marino, CA 911 08 Tel.: (626) 287-4540 Fax: (626) 237-2003 JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 425 Third Street, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20024 Tel.: (202) 646-5172 Fax: (202) 646-5199

13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Attorneys for Plaintiff

22
23 24 25 26 27 28
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 8