Attorneys for Respondents/Defendants CITY OF CLAREMONT, TONY RAMOS, LYNNE FRYMAN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Transcription

1 SONIA CARVALHO Bar No. 00 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant To Government Code Section KENDALL H. MacVEY Bar No. PAETER GARCIA Bar No. 0 paeter.garcia@bbklaw.com TAMARA BOGOSIAN Bar No. tamara.bogosian@bbklaw.com BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 0 University Avenue, th Floor Riverside, California 0 Telephone: (1) -0 Facsimile: (1)-0 Attorneys for Respondents/Defendants CITY OF CLAREMONT, TONY RAMOS, LYNNE FRYMAN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY, v. Petitioner/Plaintiff, CITY OF CLAREMONT, a California municipal corporation; TONY RAMOS, in his official capacity as City Manager of the City of Claremont; LYNNE FRYMAN, in her official capacity as City Clerk of the City of Claremont; and DOES 1 through inclusive, 1.001^00.1 Respondents/Defendants. Case No. BS Judge: Hon. Luis A. Lavin Dept.: RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS CITY OF CLAREMONT, TONY RAMOS (IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY) AND SHELLEY DESAUTELS (IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY) RETURN/ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF [Deemed Verified Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section ] [Govt. Code, ; Code Civ. Proc., 0] Date Action Filed: December, TSC Date: April, Trial Date: None set RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS CITY OF CLAREMONT. TONY RAMOS AND SI IE I. LEY DESAUTELS RETURN/ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

2 ANSWER Respondents/Defendants CITY OF CLAREMONT, TONY RAMOS in his official capacity, and SHELLEY DESAUTELS in her official capacity as City Clerk for the City of Claremont and successor to Lynne Fryman as City Clerk (the "Respondents") hereby answers the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief (the "Petition") by Petitioner and Plaintiff GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY ("Petitioner") as follows: 1. Respondents admit a "water system" is owned and operated by Petitioner Golden State Water Company. Respondents Tack sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 1 and, on that basis, deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 1.. Respondents admit the Claremont City Council conducted a public meeting on November, and admit there was a vote by the Claremont City Council to allocate $0,000 from the city's general fund at that meeting. Respondents admit bar charts were shared at the November meeting. Respondents admit the November meeting was videotaped. Except as expressly admitted herein, Respondents deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph.. Respondents admit it received requests under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code 0 et seq.) from attorney Soneff requesting Respondents to produce certain documents. Respondents did not produce all the requested documents pursuant to various statutory exceptions and exemptions available to Respondents under the California Public Records Act. Except as expressly admitted herein, Respondents deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph.. The allegations in Paragraph include conclusions of law to which no answer is required. Respondents deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph.. Respondents admit the allegations contained in Paragraph.. Respondents lack sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph and, on that basis, deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph.. Respondents admit a new City Manager joined the City of Claremont in and 1.00l\00.l RESPONDliNTS/DEKENDANTS CITY OF CLAREMONT. TONY RAMOS AND SHELLEY DESAUTELS RETURN/ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

3 admit in November the City made a formal offer to purchase Petitioner's water system for $ million. Respondents lack sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph, and on that basis, deny each and every allegation in Paragraph. Except as expressly admitted herein. Respondents deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph.. Respondents admit in December, Petitioner publicly released what it purports to be an "economic study." Except as expressly admitted herein, Respondents deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph.. Respondents admit in October, the City made a subsequent written offer to purchase Petitioner's water system for $ million and that Petitioner responded that its Claremont water system was not for sale. Except as expressly admitted herein, Respondents deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph.. Respondents deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph.. Respondents admit that on November,., the Claremont City Council held a town hall meeting. Except as expressly admitted herein, Respondents deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph.. Respondents admit that some attorneys for the City and a consultant were present at the November, meeting. Respondents admit the presentation included bar graph charts. Except as expressly admitted herein, Respondents deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph.. Respondents admit Suzanne Harrell provided comments at the November meeting and admit that select portions of Ms. HarrelPs comments are quoted in Paragraph. Respondents deny that the quoted portions in Paragraph represent the entirety of comments made by Ms. Harrell at the November meeting. Except as expressly stated herein, Respondents deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph.. Respondents admit that Mayor Opanyi Nasiali provided comments at the November meeting and admit that select portions of Mayor Nasiali's comments are quoted in Paragraph. Respondents deny that the quoted portions in Paragraph represent the entirety II,00]\00.I -- RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS CITY OP CLARt-MONT, TONY RAMOS AND SHELLEY DRSAUTF.LS RETURN/ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

4 of comments made by Mayor Nasiali at the November meeting. Except as expressly stated herein, Respondents deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph.. Respondents admit Councilmember Joe Lyons provided comments at the November meeting and admit that select portions of Councilmember Lyons' comments are quoted in Paragraph. Respondents deny that the quoted portions in Paragraph represent the entirety of comments made by Mr. Lyons at the November meeting. Except as expressly stated herein. Respondents deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph.. Respondents admit that Councilmember Corey Calacay provided comments at the November meeting and admit that select portions of Mr. Calacay's comments are quoted in Paragraph. Respondents deny that the quoted portions in Paragraph represent the entirety of comments made by Councilmember Calacay at the November meeting. Except as expressly stated herein, Respondents deny each and every other allegation continued in Paragraph.. Respondents admit that Paeter Garcia provided comments at the November meeting and admit select portions of Mr. Garcia's comments are quoted in Paragraph. Respondents deny that quoted portions in Paragraph represent the entirety of comments made by Mr. Garcia at the November meeting. Except as expressly admitted herein, Respondents deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph.. Respondents admit Sonia Carvalho provided comments at the November meeting and admit select portions of Ms. Carvalho's comments are quoted in Paragraph. Respondents deny that the portions quoted in Paragraph represent the entirety of comments made by Ms. Carvalho at the November meeting. Except as expressly admitted herein, Respondents deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph.. Respondents admit the City produced charts shown at the public meeting in response to a question presented at the November, meeting. Respondents admit that certain exempt documents have not been made public. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents, deny each and every remaining allegation in Paragraph.. Respondents admit that at the November public meeting, the Claremont City Council voted to allocate $0,000 from the City of Claremont's general fund at that meeting 1.001\ RKSPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS CITY OF CLAREMONT, TONY RAMOS AND SHKLLEY DESAUTELS RETURN/ANSWER TO ~ VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

5 related to the water system. Except as expressly admitted herein, Respondents deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph.. Respondents admit attorney Soneff sent two requests for documents under the California Public Records Act, which are documents that speak for themselves. Except as expressly admitted herein. Respondents deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph.. The referenced requests speak for themselves. Respondents admit the City did not release all of the requested documents in responses to the two requests, asserting a number of privileges and exemptions. Respondents admit the City delivered documents to Petitioner in response to Petitioner's request consisting of charts and a two-page summary of questions that were posed at the November meeting. Except as expressly admitted herein. Respondents deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph.. Respondents admit charts were displayed at the November meeting. Except as expressly admitted herein, Respondents deny each and every other allegation in Paragraph.. The allegation in Paragraph regarding an in camera review includes conclusions of law to which no answer is required. Respondents deny each and every other allegation in Paragraph.. Respondents deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph.. Respondents deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph.. The allegations in Paragraph include conclusions of Law to which no answer is required. Respondents deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph.. The allegations in Paragraph include conclusions of law to which no answer is required. Respondents admit responses were issued by a law firm. Respondents deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph. Respondents further allege that Lynne Fryman is no longer City Clerk for the City of Claremont and has been succeeded by Shelley Desautels effective January 1,. Shelley Desautels hereby appears in her official capacity in lieu of Lynne Fryman formerly City Clerk.. Respondents deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph. l.00l\00.l -- REiSPONDENTS/DEFENDANIS CITY OF CLARI-MON T. TONY RAMOS AND SHELLEY DESAUTELS RETURN/ANSWER TO VERIFIED PE TITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARA TORY RELIEF

6 PETITIONER'S PRAYER FOR RELIEF 1- Respondents deny that Petitioner is entitled to any of the relief sought, or any relief at all. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State Facts) The Petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Ripeness) Petitioner's claims are premature and do not yet involve a ripe controversy. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Compelling Temporal Urgency) There is no "compelling temporal urgency" or "exceptional circumstances" meriting peremptory relief in the first instance. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Acts Authorized By Statute or Case Law) Respondents actions in withholding the requested records were authorized by law, including under the following statutes: Government Code sections (h), (k), Evidence Code sections,, 0, Code of Civil Procedure section.00(a). FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Separation of Powers-Cal. Const. Art. Ill, ) The Separation of Powers doctrine provides that the powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by the Constitution. Il.00l\00.1 lu-ispondhnts/deff-indants CITY OF CLARFMONT, TONY RAMOS AND SIII.'.L.LEY DF.SAUTFLS RETURN/ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATI: AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

7 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Exercise of Discretionary Authority) Any and all acts of Respondents and its agents and employees were the result of discretionary authority vested in them as authorized by law. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Acts and Omissions of Third Parties) To the extent Petitioner has suffered any damages, which the Respondents deny, those damages were caused solely by the acts and omissions of third parties or entities over which the Respondents have no control. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Government Code Section (k)/evidence Code Sections & ) (Attorney-Client Privilege and Confidential Communications) Disclosure of attorney-client privileged records and or communications are exempted and privileged pursuant to Evidence Code sections and. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Government Code Section (a)-preiiminary Drafts) Preliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intra-agency memoranda that are not retained by the public agency in the ordinary course of business, are exempt from disclosure if the public interest in withholding those records clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure pursuant to Government code section (a). TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Government Code Section (e)-public Utility Systems) Geological and geophysical data, plant production data, and similar information relating to utility systems development, obtained in confidence from any person are exempted pursuant to Government Code section (e). ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Government Code Section (h)-feasibiiity Estimates) Disclosure of the contents of real estate appraisals or engineering or feasibility estimates 1.001\ RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS CITY OF CLAREMONT, TONY RAMOS AND SI IBLLEY DESAUTE1..S RETURN/ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDA TE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

8 and evaluates made for or by the state or local agency relative to the acquisition of property are exempt pursuant to Government Code section (h). TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Government Code Section (k)/evicjence Code Section 0(a)(b)() (Official Information Privilege) Official information is exempt from disclosure and privileged pursuant to Evidence Code section 0(a)(b)(). THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Deliberative Process/Legislative Process Privilege) The mental processes by which decisions are reached and the substance of conversations, discussions, debates, deliberations, and like materials reflecting advice, opinions, and recommendations by which government policy is processed and formulated are privileged and protected. The privilege also protects factual information that comprises the deliberative process, including pre-decisional documents, that is, documents that are prepared to assist an agency decision maker in making a decision. The deliberation and thought process of legislators are privileged and protected. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Government Code Section (k)/code of Civil Procedure Section.00(a)) (Attorney Work Product Doctrine) Disclosure of records containing attorney work product are exempted and protected pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section.00(a) and common law. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Government Code Section ) The public interest served by not disclosing the records clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the records. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Petitioner lacks standing to pursue the claims and relief set forth in the Petition l\00. l -- RESPONDIiNTS/DHFENDANTS CITY OF CLAREMONT, TONY RAMOS AND SHELLEY DESAUTELS RETURN/ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECL ARATORY RELIEF

9 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS Respondents reserve their rights to raise any additional defenses which are discovered or ascertained after the filing of this answer. WHEREFORE, the Respondents pray as follows: 1. The Petition be denied with prejudice;. Petitioner take nothing by this action;. Respondents be awarded its costs and attorney's fees; and. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: January 1,001\00. BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP ((u>c / By: SONIA CARVALHO KENDALL H. MacVEY ' PAETER GARCIA TAMARA BOGOSIAN Attorneys for Respondents/Defendants CITY OF CLAREMONT, TONY RAMOS IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, LYNNE FRYMAN IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY - - RKSPONDUNTS/DEFENDANTS CITY OF CLAREMONT, TONY RAMOS AND SHELLEY DESAUTELS RETURN/ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRI T OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

10 PROOF OF SERVICE At the time of service I was over years of age and not a party to this action. My business address is 0 University Avenue, th Floor, P.O. Box, Riverside, California 0. On February ^ Y,, I served the following document(s): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS CITY OF CLAREMONT, TONY RAMOS (IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY) AND SHELLEY DESAUTELS (IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY) RETURN/ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF [X By United States mail. I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed below (specify one): Deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid. [X] Placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at Riverside, California. George M. Soneff, Esq. Edward G. Burg, Esq. David T. Moran, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 1 West Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 00- P: -000 F: -- n so n e fiyrt] man nat.com: ServiceList Attorneys for: Plaintiff Golden State Water Company I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on February^,, at Riverside, California. Frances A. White 1.001\ PROOF OF SERVICE