SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY. No.



Similar documents
How To File A Lawsuit Against A Corporation In California

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

Attorneys for Plaintiff People of the State of California FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION. MARIA GODINEZ, an individual,

MARC D. LAVIK, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : C.A. No. PC 11- : DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, : DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, : STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, : COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

COMPLAINT. Now come Plaintiffs, personal care attendants, consumers, surrogates,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO - CENTRAL DIVISION. Plaintifl. Defendants.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

ex rel. BILL LOCKYER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Case 2:10-cv JCM-LRL Document 1 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 8

3 JON M. ICHINAGA Supervising Deputy Attorney General '4 MAURICE R. JOURDANE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

-1- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT S ANSWER

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, WEST DISTRICT

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION

Case LT Filed 05/14/14 Entered 05/14/14 14:14:36 Doc 6 Pg. 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

virtue of Title VIII of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Section 806 of the Corporate and

Case3:13-cv JST Document27 Filed11/27/13 Page1 of 14

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

Case 2:14-cv DB Document 2 Filed 09/03/14 Page 1 of 10

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COMPLAINT PARTIES. 2. COGA promotes the expansion of oil and gas supplies, markets, and transportation infrastructure.

Case Number XXX I. INTRODUCTION. 1. Defendants E.G.O. and E.R.O., prepare immigration documents for customers for a

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Case 3:14-cv MMD-VPC Document 12-1 Filed 02/12/14 Page 1 of 14 EXHIBIT 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LYNCHBURG (CHARLOTTESVILLE) DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No. v.

Case 9:13-cv DPG Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/11/2013 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:11-cv GMS Document 1 Filed 12/21/11 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

NO. PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. Now comes, Tommy Adkisson, individually, in his official capacity as Bexar County

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

Case5:15-cv HRL Document1 Filed01/28/15 Page1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. ) IATRIC SYSTEMS, INC., ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:14-cv ) v. ) ) FAIRWARNING, INC.

* Each Will Comply With LR IA 10 2 Within 45 days Attorneys for Plaintiff, Goldman, Sachs & Co.

Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY CENTRAL DISTRICT STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE

Case 3:08-cv JM-CAB Document 9 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 1 of 7

Case 2:09-cv GZS Document 1 Filed 02/17/2009 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

NO. PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION. Plaintiff the STATE OF TEXAS, acting by and through the Attorney General of Texas,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

No. Plaintiff Kelvin Bledsoe ( Plaintiff ), by his undersigned counsel, brings claims

Case 1:13-cv Document 1 Filed 08/13/13 Page 1 of 9 : : : : : : : : : : :

Case3:08-cv EDL Document72 Filed04/02/10 Page1 of 11

Pursuant to A.R.S , et seq., plaintiffs allege:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF

DATED: April 29, 2002 BARRY NOVACK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I. INTRODUCTION. Plaintiff State of North Carolina, by and through its Attorney General, brings this action

U ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTER DISTRICT OF KE TUCKY AT LOUISVILLE O. FILED ELECTRO ICALLY U IVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE

Case4:15-cv DMR Document1 Filed09/16/15 Page1 of 11

Case 0:13-cv RSR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 9

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff,

Case No.: CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF WORKMANSHIP AND HABITABILITY. Plaintiffs,

INTRODUCTION. States Constitution and 42 U.S.C against the State of New Jersey, New Jersey s

Plaintiff Carol Parker ( Plaintiff ), residing at 32 Coleman Way, Jackson, NJ 08527, by her undersigned counsel, alleges the following upon personal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

) Verified c-o-m-p-la-in-t- --;o~~&"-a~a~e~a6d4 0. Plaintiff, ) Demand for Jury Trial. Defendants. ) Over $25, ~)

How To Get A Court Order To Stop A Flat Fee From Being Charged In Florida

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY

Case 3:14-cv HU Document 1 Filed 04/23/14 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT. 1. Plaintiff Tim Blixseth, by and through his undersigned attorneys, for his PARTIES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Richard Hanley and : Civil Action No. 04- Susan Hanley : v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Case3:11-cv RS Document34 Filed07/28/11 Page1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:16-cv CBA-PK Document 1 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Case 3:15-cv MO Document 1 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:12-cv JRG Document 1 Filed 11/01/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Michie's Legal Resources. This part shall be known and may be cited as the Tennessee Identity Theft Deterrence Act of [Acts 1999, ch. 201, 2.

CASE 0:12-cv RHK-SER Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT THE PARTIES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT I.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION

Transcription:

TREVOR A. GRIMM, State Bar No. JONATHAN M. COUPAL, State Bar No. 1 TIMOTHY A. BITTLE, State Bar No. 00 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation 1 Eleventh Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 1 (1-0 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY 1 1 1 1 1 1 HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION; and MATTHEW BOLNER, Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, MONTEREY BAY; ERNEST STROMBERG; and DOES 1-, Defendants. No. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF (CCP 0, TAXPAYERS INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CCP a, AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF FEDERAL RIGHTS ( USC 0 1 This is a taxpayers action brought to declare the impropriety of using public resources for political campaigning, to enjoin any further use of public resources for political campaigning, and for nominal damages to a student whose constitutional rights of free speech and association were violated by the use of public resources for political campaigning. Plaintiffs allege as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ( HJTA is a nonprofit public benefit corporation, comprised of over 00,000 California taxpaying members, organized and existing under the laws of California for the purpose, among others, of advocating the reduction of taxes and engaging in civil litigation on behalf of its members and all California taxpayers to protect taxpayer rights. HJTA has members who reside and pay taxes in

1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 California, and members who are students at California State University, Monterey Bay.. Plaintiff Matthew Bolner is a taxpayer and resident of the County of Monterey, and a full-time tuition-paying student at California State University, Monterey Bay.. Defendant California State University, Monterey Bay is a campus of the California State University ( CSU, governed by its own campus president. Pursuant to regulations adopted by the CSU Trustees under the authority of Education Code sections 00 et seq., the president of each campus is responsible for hiring and supervising the staff and faculty for that campus ( Cal. Admin. Code 0, 1, and is also responsible for regulating noncommercial solicitations on campus ( Cal. Admin. Code 0-0.. Pursuant to Government Code section, CSU Monterey may sue and be sued in its own name.. Defendant Ernest Stromberg is the Director of the Division of Humanities and Communication at CSU Monterey Bay.. Defendant Does 1- are sued herein under fictitious names because their true names and capacities are unknown to plaintiffs. When their true names and capacities are ascertained, plaintiffs will amend this complaint to assert their true names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged herein, and that plaintiffs damages were proximately caused by those defendants. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief - CCP 0. Proposition 0 is an initiative measure on the November, 01 ballot, sponsored by Governor Jerry Brown, the California Federation of Teachers, and the California Teachers Association. If passed, Proposition 0 will increase the State sales and use tax for four years on all taxable purchases, and will increase the State income tax for seven years on incomes above $0,000 for individuals, or $00,000 for joint filers.. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that on or about September, 01, defendant Ernest Stromberg sent the communication attached hereto

1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 as Exhibit A ("communication from the Division of Humanities and Communication email address, using the CSU Monterey email system, to the students enrolled in the Humanities and Communication program, using their CSU Monterey email addresses.. The communication expresses and solicits support for Proposition 0. The email is addressed Dear Students, and solicits them to work together to pass Prop 0 in order to spare State funding for CSU. The solicitation is coupled with both a threat that, If Prop. 0 does not pass... CSU students will face higher fees [and] fewer classes, and with an inducement that, If we work together to pass Prop 0... students will get a $ tuition refund. The email closes with a solicitation to share this information with your family [presumably because many parents pay their children s tuition] and friends and encourage them to vote their support for the CSU System this November. The email is electronically signed Dr. Ernest Stromberg, Professor, Director Division of Humanities and Communication, 0 Campus Center, CSU Monterey Bay.. The CSU Monterey email system is primarily funded through State tax revenue and compulsory student fees. All email sent from a CSU Monterey email address to a CSU Monterey email address is routed through the CSU Monterey server.. The CSU Monterey email system is not a public forum. Every student is assigned a CSU Monterey email address to ensure that the college administration and faculty are able to communicate with the students.. Government Code section 001 provides, No newsletter or other mass mailing shall be sent at public expense. Section 01. defines mass mailing as a mailing to more than 00 recipients. Defendant Stromberg s email to approximately 0 students qualifies as a prohibited mass mailing. 1. Government Code section 1 provides, It is unlawful for... any state... appointee, employee, or consultant to use or permit others to use public resources for a campaign activity, or personal or other purposes which are not authorized by law. Defendant Stromberg s email qualifies as a prohibited use of public resources either for a campaign activity or for a personal or other unauthorized purpose.

1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I, sections and of the California Constitution guarantee every citizen freedom of speech and the right to assemble. These rights include the right to not speak and to not assemble. By using public resources to conduct a mass mailing advocating one side of a contested political campaign, defendant Stromberg violated taxpayers and students right against being compelled to speak in favor of a measure they oppose, and their right against being compelled to assemble with the proponents of a measure they oppose. 1. Government Code section 1. provides, A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment. CSU Monterey is liable under this statute for injuries caused by defendant Stromberg s unlawful use of public resources for political campaigning. 1. An actual controversy exists between the parties in that plaintiffs believe defendant Stromberg s use of the CSU Monterey email system to conduct a mass campaign mailing is unlawful and violates the constitutional rights of taxpayers and students whose tax dollars and student fees are being misused to promote a political cause which they do not support, and that CSU Monterey is liable for defendant Stromberg s actions; whereas defendants believe the alleged activities are valid in all respects. 1. Plaintiffs desire a judicial determination of the rights and duties of the parties, including a declaration regarding the validity of the email attached as Exhibit A. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Injunctive Relief - CCP a 1. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 1 above as though fully set forth herein.. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that defendant Stromberg and other administrators and faculty employed at CSU Monterey Bay will continue to have access to the CSU Monterey email system and to other public resources,

1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 and that CSU Monterey s president may neglect to regulate the political solicitation of students at public expense by CSU Monterey employees as to Proposition 0 or other measures on the ballot, unless enjoined from doing so.. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, or otherwise, for the harm and injury that will be caused by defendants continued acts and omissions as alleged herein. 0. Irreparable harm and injury will follow and be suffered by plaintiffs unless the acts and omissions of defendants are enjoined. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Damages for Violation of Federal Rights - USC 1. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 0 above as though fully set forth herein.. In committing the acts and omissions complained of herein, defendants acted under color of state law to deprive plaintiffs of certain constitutionally protected rights secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.. In committing the acts complained of herein, defendants have damaged plaintiffs in an amount which plaintiffs are presently unable to ascertain. Plaintiffs will request leave to amend this complaint to allege the amount of damages once they are determined through discovery. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below: PRAYER Based on the foregoing allegations, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants as follows: 1. For a declaration that defendant Stromberg s use of the CSU Monterey email system to send the email attached as Exhibit A to the students enrolled in the Humanities and Communication program using their CSU Monterey email addresses was unlawful and violated plaintiffs rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and that CSU Monterey is liable for defendant Stromberg s actions;

. For a permanent injunction ordering defendants to refrain from using public resources for political activities in the future, and from approving or permitting the same by persons under their supervision;. For damages according to proof;. For costs of suit including reasonable attorney fees; and. For such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED: Respectfully submitted, TREVOR A. GRIMM JONATHAN M. COUPAL TIMOTHY A. BITTLE 1 1 TIMOTHY A. BITTLE Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1 1 1 1 0 1

VERIFICATION I, Jon Coupal, am the President of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, one of the plaintiffs in this action, and authorized to sign this Verification on the Association s behalf. I have read the attached complaint. Except as to matters stated on information and belief, the allegations contained in the complaint are true of my own knowledge and, with regard to those matters stated on information and belief, I believe them to be true. I declare, upon penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on the date shown below in the City of Sacramento, California. DATED: 1 1 JON COUPAL 1 1 1 1 0 1