- 1 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 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 FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP JOHN A. O’MALLEY (BAR NO. 101181) TARIFA B. LADDON (BAR NO. 240419) AK BENNETT (BAR NO. PENDING) 555 South Flower Street Forty-First Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 892-9200 Facsimile: (213) 892-9494 [email protected][email protected][email protected]CALIFORNIA AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAW PROJECTof THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT MICHAEL F. RAWSON (BAR NO. 95868) CRAIG CASTELLANET (BAR NO. 176054) [email protected][email protected]449 15th Street, Suite 301 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 891-9794 Facsimile: (510) 891-9727 PUBLIC COUNSEL LAW CENTER SHASHI HANUMAN (BAR NO. 198522) NISHA N. VYAS (BAR NO. 228922) ADAM COWING (BAR NO. 280135) [email protected][email protected]610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, California 90005 Telephone: (213) 385-2977 Facsimile: (213) 385-9089 Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs Marina Limón, Alfredo Cordero, Celia Gonzalez, Jose Sanchez, Ana Rose Olea, Elidia Gonzalez, Ivan Torres, Javier Ibarra, and Kennedy Commission SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO MARINA LIMÓN, ALFREDO CORDERO, CELIA GONZALEZ, JOSE SANCHEZ, ANA ROSE OLEA, ELIDIA GONZALEZ, IVAN TORRES, and JAVIER IBARRA, as individuals and as taxpayers; KENNEDY COMMISSION, a nonprofit corporation, Petitioners and Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE; MICHAEL COHEN, in his official capacity as Director of the State of California Department of Finance; JAN E. GRIMES, in her official capacity as the Auditor-Controller of Orange County; and DOES 1-100, Respondents and Defendants. Case No. Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [Cal. Code of Civ. P. § 1085 and § 1060] [Caption continued on next page.]
34
Embed
FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP JOHN A. O’MALLEY (BAR NO. … › tools › assets › files › 0568.pdf11. Petitioner and plaintiff IVAN TORRES was a petitioner and plaintiff in the Limón
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
- 1 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
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
FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP JOHN A. O’MALLEY (BAR NO. 101181) TARIFA B. LADDON (BAR NO. 240419) AK BENNETT (BAR NO. PENDING) 555 South Flower Street Forty-First Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 892-9200 Facsimile: (213) 892-9494 [email protected][email protected][email protected]
CALIFORNIA AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAW PROJECTof THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT MICHAEL F. RAWSON (BAR NO. 95868) CRAIG CASTELLANET (BAR NO. 176054) [email protected][email protected] 449 15th Street, Suite 301 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 891-9794 Facsimile: (510) 891-9727
PUBLIC COUNSEL LAW CENTER SHASHI HANUMAN (BAR NO. 198522) NISHA N. VYAS (BAR NO. 228922) ADAM COWING (BAR NO. 280135) [email protected][email protected] 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, California 90005 Telephone: (213) 385-2977 Facsimile: (213) 385-9089
Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs Marina Limón, Alfredo Cordero, Celia Gonzalez, Jose Sanchez, Ana Rose Olea, Elidia Gonzalez, Ivan Torres, Javier Ibarra, and Kennedy Commission
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO MARINA LIMÓN, ALFREDO CORDERO, CELIA GONZALEZ, JOSE SANCHEZ, ANA ROSE OLEA, ELIDIA GONZALEZ, IVAN TORRES, and JAVIER IBARRA, as individuals and as taxpayers; KENNEDY COMMISSION, a nonprofit corporation, Petitioners and Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE; MICHAEL COHEN, in his official capacity as Director of the State of California Department of Finance; JAN E. GRIMES, in her official capacity as the Auditor-Controller of Orange County; and DOES 1-100, Respondents and Defendants.
Case No. Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [Cal. Code of Civ. P. § 1085 and § 1060] [Caption continued on next page.]
- 2 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
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
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE AS SUCCESSOR TO THE GARDEN GROVE AGENCY FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; GARDEN GROVE HOUSING AUTHORITY AS HOUSING SUCCESSOR TO THE GARDEN GROVE AGENCY FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; and DOES 101-200, Real Parties in Interest
- 3 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
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
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT:
This is an action to require that the State of California cease interference with a duly
entered Superior Court judgment resolving the rights of low-income households to receive
relocation assistance and replacement housing owed to them after being displaced from their
homes by government redevelopment activity. Petitioners and plaintiffs Marina Limón, Alfredo
Cordero, Celia Gonzalez, Jose Sanchez, Ana Rosa Olea, Elidia Gonzalez, Ivan Torres, Javier
Ibarra, and the Kennedy Commission (collectively, “Petitioners”) respectfully petition this Court
for a peremptory writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, for
declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1060, and for
attorneys’ fees (without limitation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5).
Petitioners, by this verified petition and complaint, allege as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE CASE
1. This case arises from defendant and respondent California Department of
Finance’s (“Department”) improper denial of redevelopment funds to the City of Garden Grove.
The denial of these funds will cause irreparable harm to the Petitioners, all low-income residents
of Garden Grove who were forced to leave their homes and community at the Travel Country
Recreational Vehicle Park (“Park”), a mobile home park in Garden Grove, that was demolished to
make way for the development of a waterpark and hotel. To mitigate the harm caused to such
residents, California law required the Garden Grove Agency for Community Development
(“Agency”) to provide relocation assistance funds to the Petitioners and to create new affordable
housing units to replace those lost to development.
2. Petitioners were forced to engage in extensive litigation to enforce their statutory
rights to relocation assistance and affordable replacement housing due under law following their
displacement from the Park. The relocation payments that the Department has now denied, and
that are the subject of this action, are court-ordered obligations resulting from the judgment
entered by the Orange County Superior Court in Marina Limón et al. v. Garden Grove Agency for
Community Development et al. (O.C. Super. Ct., 2009, Case No. 30-2009-00291597) (“the Limón
action”). Relocation assistance is required by the California Relocation Assistance Act
- 4 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
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
(“CRAA”), Government Code sections 7260 et seq. The Limón judgment (“Judgment,”
incorporated by reference and attached hereto as Exhibit A) also required, in addition to the
relocation, the provision of funds to create replacement affordable housing units (“Replacement
Units”) required by the Community Redevelopment Law (“CRL”), Health and Safety Code
sections 33000 et seq. The funding for these Replacement Units is scheduled to come on line in
2015 and 2016.
3. The Agency was required to, in essence, petition the Department to release the
funds necessary to comply with its obligations under the Judgment because of certain provisions
in the “Dissolution Act,” California Assembly Bill No. X1 26 (2011-2012 1st Ex. Sess.) as
amended by California Assembly Bill No. 1484 (2011-2012 Regular Sess.). In the Dissolution
Act, the California Legislature dissolved redevelopment agencies and created a mechanism for
such agencies to satisfy obligations already incurred, including financial obligations. The
Department refused to fulfill its legal obligation under the Dissolution Act when it denied the
Successor Agency the funds that are due to the Petitioners in January 2015, erring as a matter of
law and depriving the Petitioners of the entitlements they fought hard to secure.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. Jurisdiction and venue in this Court are proper, pursuant to Health and Safety
Code section 34168,1 which provides that an action challenging acts taken or acts to be performed
under the Dissolution Act shall be brought in the Superior Court of the County of Sacramento.
III. PARTIES
5. Petitioner and plaintiff MARINA LIMÓN was a petitioner and plaintiff in the
Limón action, and is at all times mentioned herein owed performance of the terms of the judgment
in that case. She was a resident of the Park until it was demolished. She paid taxes in the 12
months preceding the filing of this lawsuit. She has a direct and beneficial interest in the
respondents and defendants complying with the terms of the Dissolution Act and the United
States and California Constitutions. She brings this case individually and as a taxpayer pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure section 526a. 1 All further statutory citations are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise noted.
- 5 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
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
6. Petitioner and plaintiff ALFREDO CORDERO was a petitioner and plaintiff in the
Limón action, and is at all times mentioned herein owed performance of the terms of the judgment
in that case. He was a resident of the Park until it was demolished. He paid taxes in the 12
months preceding the filing of this lawsuit. He has a direct and beneficial interest in the
respondents and defendants complying with the terms of the Dissolution Act and the United
States and California Constitutions. He brings this case individually and as a taxpayer pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure section 526a.
7. Petitioner and plaintiff CELIA GONZALEZ was a petitioner and plaintiff in the
Limón action, and is at all times mentioned herein owed performance of the terms of the judgment
in that case. She was a resident of the Park until it was demolished. She paid taxes in the 12
months preceding the filing of this lawsuit. She has a direct and beneficial interest in the
respondents and defendants complying with the terms of the Dissolution Act and the United
States and California Constitutions. She brings this case individually and as a taxpayer pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure section 526a.
8. Petitioner and plaintiff JOSE SANCHEZ was a petitioner and plaintiff in the
Limón action, and is at all times mentioned herein owed performance of the terms of the judgment
in that case. He was a resident of the Park until it was demolished. He paid taxes in the 12
months preceding the filing of this lawsuit. He has a direct and beneficial interest in the
respondents and defendants complying with the terms of the Dissolution Act and the United
States and California Constitutions. He brings this case individually and as a taxpayer pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure section 526a.
9. Petitioner and plaintiff ANA ROSA OLEA was a petitioner and plaintiff in the
Limón action, and is at all times mentioned herein owed performance of the terms of the judgment
in that case. She was a resident of the Park until it was demolished. She paid taxes in the 12
months preceding the filing of this lawsuit. She has a direct and beneficial interest in the
respondents and defendants complying with the terms of the Dissolution Act and the United
States and California Constitutions. She brings this case individually and as a taxpayer pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure section 526a.
- 6 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
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
10. Petitioner and plaintiff ELIDIA GONZALEZ was a petitioner and plaintiff in the
Limón action, and is at all times mentioned herein owed performance of the terms of the judgment
in that case. She was a resident of the Park until it was demolished. She paid taxes in the 12
months preceding the filing of this lawsuit. She has a direct and beneficial interest in the
respondents and defendants complying with the terms of the Dissolution Act and the United
States and California Constitutions. She brings this case individually and as a taxpayer pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure section 526a.
11. Petitioner and plaintiff IVAN TORRES was a petitioner and plaintiff in the Limón
action, and is at all times mentioned herein owed performance of the terms of the judgment in that
case. He was a resident of the Park until it was demolished. He paid taxes in the 12 months
preceding the filing of this lawsuit. He has a direct and beneficial interest in the respondents and
defendants complying with the terms of the Dissolution Act and the United States and California
Constitutions. He brings this case individually and as a taxpayer pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 526a.
12. Petitioner and plaintiff JAVIER IBARRA was a petitioner and plaintiff in the
Limón action, and is at all times mentioned herein owed performance of the terms of the judgment
in that case. He was a resident of the Park until it was demolished. He paid taxes in the 12
months preceding the filing of this lawsuit. He has a direct and beneficial interest in the
respondents and defendants complying with the terms of the Dissolution Act and the United
States and California Constitutions. He brings this case individually and as a taxpayer pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure section 526a.
13. Petitioner KENNEDY COMMISSION was a petitioner and plaintiff in the Limón
action, and is at all times mentioned herein owed performance of the terms of the judgment in that
case. The Kennedy Commission is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the state
of California and doing business in Orange County. Its mission is to work for systemic change
resulting in the production of affordable homes for Orange County's extremely low-income
families. The members and staff of the Kennedy Commission have expended substantial time,
efforts, and resources to advocate for affordable housing in the City of Garden Grove. The
- 7 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
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
Kennedy Commission has had its mission frustrated by the actions of the Agency, the City, and
the City Council to remove or destroy affordable housing in Garden Grove. The Kennedy
Commission experiences further diversion of resources and frustration of mission by Respondents
in the present action.
14. Respondent and defendant Department is and at all times mentioned herein was an
agency of the State of California. The Department is responsible for performing certain duties
pursuant to the Dissolution Act. Pursuant to section 34177, subdivisions (l) and (m), and section
34179, subdivision (h), the Department has been charged with reviewing, on behalf of the State,
each successor agency’s listing of its enforceable obligations. The Department must approve and
authorize use of former redevelopment agency funds by successor agencies to carry out
F. Despite Clear Law Requiring the Department of Finance to Recognize the
Judgment as Enforceable, it Subsequently Denied the Obligation and
Prevented the Successor Agency from Complying With the Terms of the
Judgment.
38. Because the Judgment is unquestionably an enforceable obligation as defined in
the Dissolution Act (§ 34171, subd. (d)), the Successor Agency listed the remaining relocation
assistance payments as obligations in its October 2014 submission to the Department. The
balance of the Judgment award for the construction of the Replacement Units is scheduled for
submission on the 2015 and 2016 ROPS.
39. In order to comply with the ROPS deadlines in the Judgment, on information and
belief, on or before September 24, 2014, the Successor Agency proposed to the Garden Grove
Oversight Board the ROPS for the six-month period from January 1 through June 30, 2014
(ROPS 14-15B). “Item 40” on ROPS 14-15B lists a total outstanding debt of $1,935,540 for the
“Limon Law Suit [sic] Settlement,” which is described as the “Settlement of Former Agency
Lawsuit Associated with Item 19.”
- 14 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
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
40. Item 19 is described as the “Waterpark Hotel DDA.” Consistent with the terms of
the Judgment, Item 40 lists a current obligation $936,540.00 of the total outstanding debt of
$1,935,540 for the remaining relocation assistance still due to Petitioners as well as related
attorneys’ fees. The Successor Agency submitted notes along with ROPS 14-15B, stating that the
amounts due in ROPS periods 2015–2016 are primarily for the construction of affordable
Replacement Units required by the Judgment.
41. Upon information and belief, on or before September 24, 2014, the Oversight
Board approved the ROPS 14-15B. Then, on September 24, 2014, the Successor Agency
submitted its Oversight Board-approved ROPS 14-15B to the Department and the County
Auditor-Controller for review, consistent with the requirements of the Dissolution Act.
42. On November 7, 2014, the Department issued its determination on the Successor
Agency’s ROPS 14-15B. The Department denied payment of the entire amount in Item 40. In
rejecting Item 40, the Department stated:
Limon Law Suit settlement totaling $1,936,540 is not allowed. Pursuant to HSC 34178, the successor agency can only enter into agreements upon obtaining the approval of its oversight board approval [sic]. However, the April 2014 settlement agreement was not approved by the Agency’s Oversight Board. Therefore, this line item is not an enforceable obligation and is not eligible for Redevelopment tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) funding.
43. The Department’s conclusion is incorrect. On information and belief, the
Oversight Board did not object to Item 40, or any other item, when it approved ROPS 14-15B.
44. Specifically, on November 12, 2014, the Oversight Board passed Resolution No.
37-14, approving the terms of the Judgment. In so doing, the Oversight Board cited its “fiduciary
responsibilities to holders of enforceable obligations and the affected taxing entities that benefit
from distributions of property tax and other revenues pursuant to Section 34188” of the
Dissolution Act. The Oversight Board also noted the Judgment specifically states the obligations
therein belong to the Agency. The Oversight Board concluded:
“thus, the Successor Agency’s liability for amounts owed under the Judgment [is] limited to funding provided through the RPTTF and ROPS process and the value of assets received by the successor Agency and [. . .] the Successor Agency is required to list the obligations of the Judgment on all ROPS until all obligations are satisfied.”
- 15 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
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
(City of Garden Grove Oversight Board Resolution No. 37-14.)
45. Upon information and belief, on November 12, 2014, pursuant to section 34177,
subdivision (m) of the Dissolution Act, the Successor Agency requested to meet and confer with
the Department to contest the Department’s denial of the enforceability of the Judgment. Upon
information and belief, the Successor Agency and the Department met and conferred on or about
November 18, 2014. Neither Petitioners nor their counsel were informed of the Departments’
initial determination, nor were they informed of the Successor Agency’s request to meet and
confer.
46. On November 26, 2014, counsel for Petitioners requested to meet and confer with
the Department. Petitioners also provided detailed written information on the Department’s
errors in denying the terms of the Judgment as enforceable obligations. The Department declined
to meet and confer with Petitioners.
47. Based on the Department’s determination for ROPS 14-15B, the County Auditor-
Controller is directed to release to other taxing entities the funds that should have instead been
disbursed to the Successor Agency for satisfaction of the Judgment, on or before January 2, 2015.
(§ 34183, subd.(a).)
G. Absent the Injunctive and Other Relief Sought Herein, the Low Income
Petitioners Face Serious Irreparable Injury.
48. Pursuant to Department’s erroneous determination that the Judgment is not an
enforceable obligation under the Dissolution Act, the County Auditor-Controller will imminently
disburse the funds associated with Item 40, the Judgment, to the local taxing entities in January
2015, instead of to the Successor Agency to satisfy its obligations to Petitioners. (§ 34183(a).)
49. Petitioners seek a writ of mandate, and/or preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief, and declaratory relief, requiring the Department to comply with California law and to
reverse its determination that the Judgment obligations are not enforceable obligations under
section 34171, subdivision (d). Petitioners also ask the Court to direct the Department to
authorize the payments necessary for the Successor Agency to meet its outstanding, court-ordered
obligations to the Petitioners outlined in the Judgment.
- 16 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
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
50. Petitioners, who are low-income individuals, were displaced from their homes and
their community at the Park more than 34 months ago. The Petitioners who owned their mobile
homes lost the significant investments they made on those homes. Petitioners lost their health
care providers, schools, churches, neighbors and friends.
51. Many of the Petitioners have suffered extreme amounts of stress related to their
housing insecurity, their displacement from the Park, and the destruction of their community. In
some cases, the Petitioners have suffered serious physical injury that they believe to be related to
the stress caused by the Agency’s actions and the Department’s denial of the Successor Agency’s
remaining obligations.
52. Petitioners’ households expend significantly more of their limited incomes for
housing than they did at the Park. Most of the Petitioners are struggling to make rent payments to
stay in their current homes at market rate rents. They have exhausted (or nearly exhausted) the
partial relocation assistance they were provided at the time of displacement. Petitioners are
relying on the additional relocation assistance owed to them under California law, the DDA, and
the Judgment, in order to continue to pay rent and to make needed safety and accessibility
improvements to their housing of last resort.
53. Furthermore, as the Department has denied line Item 40, the Successor Agency
and Garden Grove will not be able to proceed with developing the necessary Replacement Units
required by the Judgment, foreclosing the Petitioners ability to secure the affordable housing
reserved for them under the law.
54. Individual Petitioners face real, tangible harm from the Department’s denial,
which has the practical effect of vacating the Judgment they obtained against the Agency for its
violation of their rights as individuals displaced by redevelopment agency action.
- 17 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
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
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Writ of Mandate Compelling Department to Approve Item 40 on the ROPS 14-15B