Cerletti v. Hennessy 556164
Number of Pages:20
Date Created:December 28, 2016
Date Uploaded to the Library:January 23, 2017
Donate now to keep these documents public!
See Generated Text ∨
Autogenerated text from PDF
11111111111111111 SUPERIOR COURT CALIFORNIA COUNTY SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Dec-27-2016 1:58 Case Number: CGC-16-556164 Filing Date: Dec-27-2016 1:54 Filed by: KALENE APOLONIO Image: 05684124 COMPLAINT CYNTHIA CERLETTI VS. VICKI HENNESSY 001 C05684124 Instructions: Please place this sheet top the document scanned. SUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL. DBfAIIDADO): VICKI HENNESSY her Official Capacity Sheritf the City and County San Francisco YOU ARE BEING SUED PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA Dl!IIANDANDO DEWIANDANTli): CYNTHIA CBRLETTI The name and adcha the court Is: (Elnomln ydllacddn cotte es,: SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR 400 McCalister Street San Francisco 94102 AiPi, :1:, The name. addreA, and telephone number plalntlfla attorney, plalnliffwlthout attomey, Is: (El namln, dl8ccldn ye/ nOmelD telMono del abogado de/ dtmandante, ode/ d8mandente que Ilene abogado, n): Robert Patrick Sticht, P.0. Box 49457 Los Angeles 90049 (310) 889-19SO DEC 2016 CLERK THE COUR~J ~ll-o ,:, (Forp,oo/otieii, ollbii -.mon,. use Proof cir service siimmcmi (ionn POs-o10).j -ftW.6vjp (Pam pn,eba en1n1ga esta cltall6n ,,. fonnul8do Proof Service summons. (POS-010)). NOTICE THE PERSON SERVED: You 818 served lncllvkhaf delandanL the person sued under lhe flclllloul name (spedfy): behalf (apeclfy): under: CCP 418.10 (corpordon) CCP 418.20 (defunct corporallon) CCP 418.40 (asaoc:latlon parlnerahlp) other (specif/): penana1 c1e11very (dateJ: oNS CCP 418.80 (mlnoi) CCP 418.70 (c:omervalee) CCP 418.80 (aUlhorized person) ROBERT PATRICK STICHT (SBN 138586) Law Offices Robert Patrick Sticht P.0. Box 49457 Los Angeles, 90049 Telephone: (310) 889-1950 Facsimile: (310) 889-1864 Email: LORPS@verizon.net Sterling Norris (SBN 040993) JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. su!lor _krt ~P:renclleo lomlP Col.lltY OIi sen Lit.C 2016 St.:LE:t:n;~:: 2540 Huntington Drive, Suite 201 San Marino, 91108 Telephone: (626) 287-4540 Facsimile: (626) 237-2003 Email: jw-West@judicialwatch.org SUPERIOR COURT THE STATE CALIFORNIA COUNTY SAN FRANCISCO Case No.:CGC-16 5616 CYNTHIA CERLBITI, Plaintiff, VICKI HENNESSY, her Official Capacity Sheriff the City and County San Francisco. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Defendant. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff CYNTHIA CERLETII, taxpayer and resident the City and County San Francisco, California (CCSF) seeks enjoin Defendant VICKI ~BSSY, her :CJ Attorneys for Plaintiff official capacity Sheriff the CCSF, and the San Francisco Sheriffs Department (SFSD) from expending causing the expenditure taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources policies and/or practices that prohibit restrict SFSD personnel from sharing exchanging immigration-related information with federal immigration law enforcement officials, including information about the citizenship immigration status individuals the SFSDs custody and information about the release individuals from the SFSDs custody. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF JURISDICTION AND VENUE Jurisdiction this case founded Californias common law taxpayer standing doctrine and Code Civil Procedure 526a, which grant California taxpayers the right sue government officials prevent unlawful expenditmes taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources. Connerly Schwarzenegger, 146 Cal. App. 4th 739, 748-749, 751, (2007); Connerly State Personnel Bd., Cal. App. 4th 16, 29-31 (2001); Torres City Yorba Linda, Cal. App. 4th 1035, 1047 (1993); Green Obledo, Cal. 126, 145 (1981); Los Altos Property Owners Assn. Hutcheon, Cal. App. 22, 27-30 (1977); Blair Pitchess, Cal. 258,268 (1971); Irwin City ofManhattan Beach, Cal. 13, 18-20 (1966); Ahlgren Carr, 209 Cal. App. 248, 252-253 (1962); Gogerty Coachella Valley Junior College Dist., Cal. 727, 730 (1962). Blair, the Supreme Court California noted that the mere expending [of] the time the paid [public officials] performing illegal and unauthorized acts constitute[s] unlawful use funds which could enjoined under section 526a.... Blair, Cal.3d 268 (citation omitted). The Court also declared, immaterial that the amount the illegal expenditures small that the illegal procedures actually permit saving tax funds. Id. (citation omitted). Venue this Court appropriate under Section 393 the Code Civil Procedure Defendant official the CCSF and the taxpayer funds issue are being expended the CCSF. Regents ofthe University ofCa/ifomia Karst, Cal. 529,542 (1970) ([F]or the purposes venue, the action arises the county where the agency spends the tax money that causes the alleged injury.). PARTIES Plaintiff CYNTHIA CERLEm citizen and taxpayer, and has paid property and other local taxes the CCSF during the one-year period prior the commencement this action. Defendant VICKI HENNESSY the Sheriff the CCSF, public officer and the head the SFSD. Sheriff the CCSF, Defendant charged law with keeping the County COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE REUEF jail and receiving all prisoners committed jail ~ompetent authorities. S.F. Cal. Charter, 6.1 OS. Defendant being sued her official capacity only. STATEMENT FACTS The Government the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject immigration and the status aliens. Arizona United States, 132 Ct. 2492, 2498 (2012). This authority rests, part, the National Governments constitutional power establish uniform Rule ofNaturalization, and its inherent power sovereign control and conduct relations with foreign nations. Id. (internal citations omitted). Federal governance immigration and alien status extensive and complex. Id. 2499. enacting the following statute: Notwithstanding any other provision Federal, State, local law, State local government entity may prohibited, any way restricted, from sending receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the immigration status, lawful unlawful, alien the United States. August 1996, Congress exercised its broad, undoubted power over immigration u.s.c. 1644. The term alien defined Title Section 101(a)(3) the U.S. Code and means any person not citizen national the United States. Immigration and Naturalization Service now known Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE. September 1996, Congress again exercised its broad, undoubted power over immigration enacting the following statute: (a) general. Notwithstanding any other provision Federal, State, local law, Federal, State, local government entity official may not prohibit, any way restrict, any government entity official from sending to, receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship immigration status, lawful unlawful, any individual. (b) Additional authority government entities. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Notwithstanding any other provision Federal, State, local law, person agency may prohibit, any way restrict, Federal, State, local government entity from doing any the following with respect infonnation regarding the immigration status, lawful unlawful, any individual: {l) (2) (3) Sending such information to, requesting receiving such infonnation from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Maintaining such information. Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, Local government entity. Obligation respond inquiries. {c) The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond inquiry Federal, State, local government agency, seeking verify ascertain the citizenship immigration status any individual within the jurisdiction the agency for any purpose authorized law, providing the requested verification status information. u.s.c. 1373. Section 1373 prohibits State and local government entities and officials from taking action prohibit, any way restrict, the maintenance intergovernmental exchange immigration status information, including through written unwritten policies practices. 10. The two statutes individually and collectively demonstrate that Congress has long sought encourage full and open communication between state and local agencies and federal immigration law enforcement officials and remove obstacles such communication aid the enforcement federal immigration laws. The legislative history Section 1373 confirms that the statute was intended 11. give State and local officials the authority communicate with the INS regarding the presence, whereabouts, and activities illegal aliens. This section designed prevent any State local law, ordinance, executive order, policy, constitutional provision, decision any Federal State court that prohibits any way restricts any communication between State and local officials and the INS. U.S. House Representatives Report, Immigration the National Interest Act 1995, (H.R. 2202), 1996, Rept 104-469, 277, https://www.congress.gov/l04/crpt/hrpt469/CRPT- 04hrpt469-ptl .pdf (accessed August 2016). COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 12. The Senate Report accompanying Section 1373 also confirms this clear congressional objective: Effective immigration law enforcement requires cooperative effort between all levels government. The acquisition, maintenance, and exchange immigration-related information State and local agencies consistent with, and potentially considerable assistance to, the Federal regulation immigration and the achieving the purposes and objectives the Immigration and Nationality Act. Senate Report, Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act 1996, (S. 1664), 1996, Rept. 104-249, 19, available https://www.congress.gov/104/crpt/srpt249/CRPT- 04srpt249 .pdf (accessed August 16, 2016). 13. The Conference Report accompanying Section 1644 identical the House Report accompanying Section 1373. See Conference Report, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 1996, (H.R. 3734), 383, https://www.congress.gov/I 04/crpt/hrpt725/CRPT-104hrpt725.pdf. 14. Other statutes reflect this same congressional objective. Title Section 1357 the U.S. Code, for example, authorizes the U.S. Attorney General enter into written agreements with state local governments assist the enforcement federal immigration laws, but also makes clear that such agreement required for the cooperation desired Congress: Nothing this subsection shall construed require agreement under this subsection order for any officer employee State political subdivision ofa State- (A) communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status any individual, including reporting knowledge that particular alien not lawfully present the United States; (B) otherwise cooperate with the Attorney General the identification, apprehension, detention, removal aliens not lawfully present the United States. u.s.c. 1357(g)(I0). 15. Another provision this same statute demonstrates Congress particular interest promoting information sharing between state and local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration law enforcement officials about aliens arrested for controlled substance violations: COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ------------------------->v, Detainer aliens for violation controlled substances laws. the case alien who arrested Federal, State, local law enforcement official for violation any law relating controlled substances, the official (or another official)( has reason believe that the alien may not have been lawfully admitted the United States otherwise not lawfully present the United States, (2) expeditiously infonns appropriate officer employee the Service authorized and designated the Attorney General the arrest and facts concerning the status the alien, and (3) requests the Service determine promptly whether not issue detainer detain the alien, the officer employee the Service shall promptly determine whether not issue such detainer. such detainer issued and the alien not otherwise detained Federal, State, local officials, the Attorney General shall effectively and expeditiously take custody the alien. u.s.c. 1357(d). 16. [c]onsultation between federal and state officials important feature the immigration system. Arizona United States,132 Ct. 2508. The Court also noted that Congress has encouraged the sharing information about possible immigration violations. Id. (quoting U.S.C. 1357(g)(IO)(A)). According the Court, examples such cooperation include allow[ing] federal immigration officials gain access detainees held state facilities and state officials responding requests for information about when alien will released from their custody. Id. 2507 (internal citations omitted). its 2012 ruling Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that II. 17. The free exchange immigration-related information state and local agencies remains federal priority, confirmed the current program and policies the federal agencies responsible for immigration law enforcement the U.S. Department Homeland Security (OHS) and its immigration components, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 18. 2014, DHS changed its immigration enforcement program and policies promote cooperation and information sharing state and local law enforcement officials COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF particularly regarding criminal aliens their custody. The change was prompted nwnber enforcement obstacles including state and local law enforcement officials refusing cooperate and communicate with ICE and issuing policies signing laws prohibiting such cooperation. Specifically, November 20, 2014 memorandwn OHS Secretary Jeh Johnson directed ICE discontinue its enforcement program known Secure Communities (also known Comm) and replace with new program referred the Priority Enforcement Program PEP.11 Secretary Johnson further directed ICE take enforcement actions through the new program only against criminal aliens the custody state and local law enforcement who have been convicted particular, priority crimes, when alien poses danger national security. separate memorandum issued the same day entitled Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal ofUndocwnented Immigrants, Secretary Johnson set forth DHSs civil immigration enforcement priorities. 19. PEP targets criminal aliens the custody state and local law enforcement who have been convicted the following priority offenses: Priority 1(c), aliens convicted offense for which element was active participation criminal street gang, defined U.S.C. 521(a); Priority l(d), aliens convicted offense classified felony the convicting jurisdiction, other than state local offense for which essential element was the aliens immigration status; Priority l(e), aliens convicted aggravated felony, defined section 10l(a)(43) the Immigration and Nationality Act U.S.C. 1101(a)(43); Priority 2(a), aliens convicted three more misdemeanor offenses, other than minor traffic offenses state local offenses for which essential element was the aliens immigration status; Priority 2(b), aliens convicted significant misdemeanor, defined offense domestic violence; sexual abuse exploitation; burglary; unlawful possession use firearm; drug distribution trafficking; driving under the influence; another offense for which the individual was sentenced time custody days more (and the sentence was not suspended sentence). 20. Under PEP, two fonns may sent state and local law enforcement agencies. Form I-247N (Request for Voluntary Notification Release Suspected Priority Alien) requests state local law enforcement agency notify ICE pending release during the time COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF that priority alien custody under state local authority. The information enables ICE take custody the alien, who poses danger public safety, before she released into the community. Form 1-247D (Immigration Detainer- Request for Voluntary Action) requests state local law enforcement agency voluntarily maintain custody alien for period hours beyond the time the alien otherwise would have been released. The continued detention allows ICE additional time assume custody oftheindividual. ICE only issues detainer when alien meets the criteria the list enforcement priorities and subject final order removal there other probable cause that the alien removable. III. 21. The City and County San Francisco has declared City and County Refuge. See S.F. Admin. Code ch. 12H.1. such, the CCSF has enacted number oflaws that serve barriers obstacles federal civil immigration enforcement Indeed, the CCSF imposes substantial restrictions sharing information with, and providing assistance to, federal immigration law enforcement officials. Administrative Code Section 12H.2, entitled Immigration Status, provides: department, agency, commission, officer, employee the City and County San Francisco shall use any City funds resources assist the enforcement Federal immigration law gather disseminate information regarding release status individuals any other such personal information defined Chapter 121 the City and County San Francisco unless such assistance required Federal State statute, regulation, court decision. S.F. Cal. Admin. Code 12H.2 (2016). 22. (a) Assisting cooperating, ones official capacity, with any investigation conducted the Federal agency charged with enforcement the Federal immigration law and relating alleged violations the civil provisions the Federal immigration law, except permitted under Administrative Code Section 121.3. This prohibition broadly written and expressly includes, but not limited to: *** Requesting information about, disseminating information, ones official capacity, regarding the release status any individual any other such personal information defined Chapter 121, except permitted under Administrative Code Section 121.3. (c) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF S.F. Cal. Admin. Code 12H.2(a) and (c). 23. Personal information defined broadly and, addition individuals release status, includes any confidential, identifying information about individual, including, but not limited to, home work contact information, and family emergency contact information. S.F. Cal. Admin. Code 12I.2. information and belief, citizenship and immigration status constitutes identifying information about individual. 24. separate section oftbe Administration Code, entitled Restrictions Law Enforcement Officials, prohibits officials from responding federal immigration officers notification request. S.F. Cal. Admin. Code 12I.3(c). notification request defined non-mandatory request issued authorized federal immigration officer local law enforcement official asking for notification the authorized immigration officer individuals release from local custody prior the release individual from local custody. Notification requests may also include informal requests for release information the Federal agency charged with enforcement oftbe Federal immigration law. Id. 121.2. 25. The only exception this prohibition notification request regarding alien who has been convicted Violent Felony the past seven years, Serious Felony the past five years, three separate, particular, serious violent felonies the past five years, provided further that magistrate has also determined there currently probable cause believe the alien guilty particular, serious violent felony and bas ordered the alien answer for the offense. Id. 12I.3(d). Even the alien meets both these criteria, before responding notification request, law enforcement officials also shall consider evidence the individuals rehabilitation and evaluate whether the individual poses public safety risk. Evidence rehabilitation other mitigating factors consider includes, but not limited to, the individuals ties the community, whether the individual has been victim any crime, the individuals contribution the community, and the individuals participation social service rehabilitation programs. Id. 26. The section further limits the authority law enforcement officials communicate with ICE: COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Law enforcement officials shall not ... provide any individuals personal infonnation federal immigration officer, the basis administrative warrant, prior deportation order, other civil immigration document based solely alleged violations the civil provisions immigration laws. S.F. Cal. Admin. Code 12I.3(e). IV. 27. The SFSD receives millions dollars taxpayer support annually order fund its operations. Fiscal Year 2014-15, the SFSD was appropriated approximately $190 million from the CCSFs general fund finance its operations. Fiscal Year 2015-16, the SFSD was appropriated nearly $200 million from the CCSFs general fund finance its operations. The CCSFs adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2016-17 appropriates nearly $208 million the SFSD from the general fund finance the SFSDs operations. The primary source funds for the CCSFs general fund are property taxes and other local taxes such those paid Plaintiff. 28. March 13, 2015, then-SheriffRoss Mirkarimi issued directive All Personnel the SFSD way ofan inter-office correspondence, Reference No. 2015-036, entitled Immigration Customs Enforcement Procedures (ICE) Contact and Communications (2015 Directive). 29. According the 2015 Directive, SFSD policy that there shall limited contact and communication with ICE representatives absent court issued warrant, signed court order, other legal requirement authorizing ICE access. The 2015 Directive expressly states that SFSD staff shall not provide the following information access ICE representatives: citizenship/immigration status any inmate; access inmates jail; access SFSD computers and/or databases; SFSD logs; booking and arrest documents; release dates times; home work contact information; other non-public jail records information. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF The 2015 Directive was, and is, part broader SFSD policy and practice restricting nearly all, not all, information sharing with federal immigration law enforcement officials, accordance with the Administrative Code provisions described above. 30. information and belief, taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources were expended prepare and issue the 2015 Directive, communicate the directive all SFSD personnel, train SFSD personnel the directives requirements, and implement, enforce, and otherwise carry out the directive. 31. The issuance the 2015 Directive generated considerable opposition within the government the CCSF, the SFSD, and the taxpayers and residents the CCSF, particularly the aftermath the July 2015 shooting death Kathryn Steinle repeatedly-deported, unlawfully present alien who had seven prior felony convictions and had recently been released from SFSDs custody despite outstanding ICE request that detained. information and belief, the SFSD expended additional taxpayer funds and taxpayer financed resources responding this opposition and defending the directive. 32. SheriffMirkarimis term office expired January 2016, and Defendant became Sheriff about that date. April 11, 2016, Defendant issued directive All Personnel the SFSD way inter-office correspondence, Reference No. 2016-05 entitled Immigration and Custom Enforcement Procedure (ICE) Contact and Communication (2016 Directive). 33. The 2016 Directive states that revokes and replaces the 2015 Directive, but does not state that SFSD personnel are free exchange information with ICE about persons citizenship immigration status. Although the 2016 Directive lists several items information that SFSD staff are authorized not authorized provide ICE, citizenship immigration status not listed either category. Information SFSD staff are NOT authorized provide ICE includes the following: Access inmates jail Access SFSD computers and/or data bases SFSD logs COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Booking and arrest documents Release dates and times Home work contact information Faxed Form SFSD ICE Notification: rev. 3-2014 34. The 2016 Directive also contains purported savings clause that states, This memo does not limit staff from providing information required authorized state law, including the reporting requirements for specific drug arrests pursuant California HS 11369, and federal law. information and belief, California HS 11369 refers California Health and Safety Code Section 11369, California law requiring that the appropriate agency the United States having charge deportation matters notified whenever there reason believe person arrested for certain offenses involving controlled substances may not citizen. Also, information and belief, federal law does not refer Title United States Code, Sections 1373 and 1644. Neither statute requires authorizes any information, including citizenship immigration status, provided ICE; they only prohibit obstacles sharing such information. 35. The 2016 Directive also provides, All ICE notification requests for intended release dates suspected undocumented immigrant inmates our custody are voluntary nature, meaning the department whether notify pursuant request not. further states that Defendant developing case case determination policy for voluntary notification release. The directive then provides, All ICE Requests for Voluntary Notification {DRS Form 1-2470 I-247N) will continue forwarded Administration without action. 36. information and belief, the tenn notification request the 2016 Directive intended have the same meaning that term defined Section 121.2 the Administrative Code. Thus, the 2016 Directive restricts SFSD staff from communicating with ICE, formally informally, the case all ICE notification requests, including requests about individuals release from SFSDs custody. 37. addition, SFSD document dated April 18, 2016, entitled Comparison Proposed Policies Regarding Response ICE Voluntary Notification Requests, explains that the COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SFSD will only respond notification request the individual subject the request meets specific criminal history threshold. the threshold met, the SFSD will consider evidence mitigating factors before any release infonnation shared with ICE. addition, whether not the ICE notification request honored, the individual will informed the notification request and provided with information about social and legal services available for immigrants. The Public Defenders Office will also informed the notification request. 38. The April 18, 2016 document also states that Defendant personally reviewed approximately ICE Voluntary Requests for Notification that were sent the San Francisco Sheriffs Department over the course three months and found cases where review criminal history triggered review Evidence Mitigating Factors. This demonstrates that the 2016 Directives notification provision effective substantially restricting, not prohibiting, SFSD staff from communicating with ICE. further demonstrates that SFSD systematically acting way that conflicts with the policies priorities set the DHS outlined above. 39. The fact that the April 18, 2016 document identifies restrictions information sharing not expressly contained the 2016 Directive demonstrates that Defendants policy and practice broader than appears the face the directive. information and belief, the 2016 Directive was, and is, part broader SFSD policy and practice restricting nearly all, not all, immigration-related information sharing with federal immigration law enforcement officials, including information about citizenship immigration status and release information. 40. information and belief, Defendant expended taxpayer funds and taxpayer- financed resources revoking and replacing the 2015 Directive. information and belief, Defendant also expended additional taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources preparing and issuing the 2016 Directive, communicating the directive all SFSD personnel, training SFSD personnel the directives requirements, and implementing, enforcing, and otherwise canying out the directive. further information and belief, Defendant also expended taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources preparing and issuing the April 18, 2016 document, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF distributing the document the San Francisco Board Supervisors, and coordinating with members the Board Supervisors and others the document. 41. The issuance the 2016 Directive caused confusion and generated opposition from the immigrant rights advocacy community within the CCSF. about April 25, 2016, for example, prominent immigrant rights advocacy group claimed that the 2016 Directive allows SFSD personnel respond ICE notification requests circumstances beyond those allowed the CCSF Administrative Code. information and belief, Defendant expended additional taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources defending and explaining the 2016 Directive and responding this and other challenges the directive. FIRST CAUSE ACTION (Express Preemption- U.S.C. 1373 and 1644) 42. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs reference fully set forth herein and further alleges follows: 43. actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendant. Plaintiff contends Defendants policies and practices substantially restricting, not prohibiting, SFSD personnel from sharing information with federal immigration law enforcement officials are expressly preempted U.S.C. 1373 and/or 1644 and, result, are illegal. information and belief, Defendant contends that her policies and practices are not expressly preempted U.S.C. 1373 and/or 1644 and are not illegal. 44. Plaintiff has been irreparably banned and will continue irreparably harmed Defendants expenditures taxpayer funds and taxpayer-fmanced resources her illegal policies and practices. infonnation and belief, these expenditures will continue unless the policies and practices are declared unlawful. 45. judicial declaration pursuant California Code Civil Procedure 1060 necessary and appropriate that the parties may ascertain their respective legal rights and duties with respect expenditures taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources Defendants illegal policies and practices. 46. Plaintiff also has adequate remedy law. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SECOND CAUSE ACTION (Implied Preemption Obstacle Purpose and Objectives Congress) 47. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs reference fully set forth herein and further alleges follows: 48. actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendant. Plaintiff contends that Defendants policies and practices substantially restricting, not prohibiting, SFSD personnel from sharing information with federal immigration law enforcement officials are impliedly preempted because they stand obstacles the accomplishment and execution the full pmposes and objectives Congress and, result, are illegal. infonnation and belief, Defendant contends that her policies and practices are not impliedly preempted and are not illegal. 49. Plaintiff has been irreparably banned and will continue irreparably banned Defendants expenditures taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources her illegal policies and practices. information and belief, these expenditures will continue unless the policies and practices are declared unlawful. 50. judicial declaration pursuant California Code Civil Procedure 1060 necessary and appropriate that the parties may ascertain their respective legal rights and duties with respect expenditures taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources Defendants illegal policies and practices. 51. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief against Defendant: Plaintiff also has adequate remedy law. FIRST CAUSE ACTION judgment declaring that Defendants policies and practices sharing infonnation with federal immigration law enforcement officials are expressly preempted U.S.C. 1373 and 1644 and are illegal; injunction permanently prohibiting Defendant from expending causing the expenditure taxpayer funds taxpayer-financed resources implement, enforce, maintain, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF defend, otherwise carry out the policies and practices; Costs suit herein; Reasonable attomeys fees under the Private Attorney General Statute, Code Civil Procedure 1021.S, the Common Fund Doctrine, and the Substantial Benefit Doctrine; and Such other relief the Court deems just and proper. SECOND CAUSE AClION judgment declaring that Defendants policies and practices sharing information with federal immigration law enforcement officials are impliedly preempted and are illegal; injunction permanently prohibiting Defendant from expending causing the expenditure oftaxpayer funds taxpayer-financed resources implement, enforce, maintain, defend, otherwise carry out the policies and practices; Costs suit herein; Reasonable attorneys fees under the Private Attorney General S1atute, Code Civil Procedme 1021.S, the Common Fund Doctrine, and the Substantial Benefit Doctrine; and Such other relief the Court deems just and proper. Dated: December 23, 2016 ROBERT PATRICK STICHT (SBN 138S86) Law Offices Robert Patrick Sticht P.O. Box 49457 Los Angeles, 90049 Telephone: (310) 889-1950 Facsimile: (310) 889-1864 Email: LORPS@verizon.net Sterling Norris (SBN 040993) JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 2540 Huntington Drive, Suite 201 San Marino, California 91108 Telephone: (626) 287-4S40 Facsimile: (626) 237-2003 Email: jw-West@judicialwatcb.org COMPLAINT llOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCIIVE RELIEF ~~(lfllfflr~---- lOlf cxutr,-QNLY su!~ lromiP LA.WOfflCES ROBBR.T PATRICK STICHT P.O. BOX4MS7 LOS ANGBLBS 90049 IELl!PHONINO.: ATIORNIYFal 310-889-1950 FAXNO.: 310-889-1864 Plaintiff CYNTHIA CBRLBTT.1 ERIORCOURTOF CALIFORNIA.COUNTY marADDAE11: Count) San lranclaco Utt; SAN FRANCISCO 400 McCalister Street Room 103 2016 c~R OF~HE couRT MAUOADORIR !!co~CA!!:!!!~941!!02!2------------1 Civic Center 1-_cnv-..!!MD!!lliZIPIUCCIDll:!ll~S!:!lan!!!!F~rancu~!!! Courthouse av: ,,111 .., mll--oaputy C18fk CAIENAM: Cerletti Vicki CML CASE COVER SHEET IZJ Un1m1tec1 (Amount her Official Complex caae Designation Umll8cl (Amount demanded $25.000 leae) d1111111ded exceedl $25,000) Counter Jo1nc1er Flied with find appearance defendant (Cal Ru111 Court. rule JUDGE: ltema 1-6 below must 188 Check one bCllx below for the case type that beat deacrlbea this case: Pnw1a1ona1J Complex ClvR LltlgaUon Contract AutvTort Auto C22> Bntact1 otcontrlC:INMnantr (08) Unlnlured mololllt (48) Rule 3.740 collectfons (08) Olher PUPDMD ....._... lnJmy/Property Olhercallec:llona (09) Death) Tort Insurance coverage (18) A1be1t01 C04> Olher c:on1rac:t (37) Product lllbllilJ (24) Real Propert, Medical malpmdlce (45) emtnent domalnllnver8e OlherPIJPOMID (23) condemnallon (14) B!!!.-PflPDtWD (Other) Tort Wrongful evlcllon (31) Bustnea tort/unfair business prac11ce (07) Olhar 1881 praperly (28) Civil rtghll (08) Unlawful Detainer ceramat1on c13> eommen:1ar (31> Fraud (18) ResldenUal (32) 1111e11ea1ua1pnipe,tyc19> Drup(38> P8181onlf nagBgence (25) Judk:lal Review Other non-P11PDN11D tort (35) AUet rorlellura (05) IINlnt tongfu1 l8rmlnaUon (3) Olher Petition 19: arbllratlon .n1 (11) Writ manc1e1e (DZ) Olher Udlclal lllvlew (Cat. Rula Court. ndea MGM.AU) Antltrult/Tnlde raau1a11on (03) Conllrudlon dafec:l (10) ,.... tort Secur1Ues 1111aauon env1ronmen1avrox1c tort (30) above listed pnw onally complei from lhe Insurance oove:z dalma arfllng case types(41) Enforcement Judgment Enrorcament ot)udgment (20) Complalnt Mlecellaneoua Clvll RIC0(27) Other complaint (nol .,,acllled ebcM) (42) Mlscellaneous Clvll Plllltlon Partnerahlp anc1 CDll)Clrate governance (21> Other petlllon (not apeo/lled abow) (43) IZJ This caae not complex under rule 3.400 the Callfomla Rules Court. the case complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judldal management Large number aeparately represanted par1iea Larga number ofwltnesaes Extensive mo6on pndce raising difficult novel Coordination with related acUona pending one mol8 cour1s iNues that wil time-coneuming raaolve other counties, 8latea, countries, fedentl court Substantial amount documenlary evidence Substantlll poatjudgmentjudicial supervision a.D Remedies sought (chec/c a/I that apply): monetary b.[ZJ nonmonelary: declaratory lnjunclive reBef Number cauaea action (specify}: Two This case not class aclfon suit. lfthent ara any known related caaea, flla and serve nollca related case. (You may use fonn CM-tJ1S.) ,., 1ZJ (i, ~Ja2nl~CICSDCHT DPunillve ;;.. ~..c.r?c0v .L~~ Plalnlllf nut file thla eover lheet with the flrlt paper filed lhe action proceeding (except email claims caNt caaes ffled under the Probate Code. Family Code, Nelfale and lnstiluliona Code). (Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.220.) FaBURt ffle may result l8lldlon8. FDe 1h11 caver sheet addlUon any cover sheet raqulrad local court rule. 1h11 c:ase complex under rule 3.400 eeq. the Cellbnla RulN Court. you mull serve copy this cover lheet all othar parlles the action proceeding. Unless 1h18 colledlona CBN under rule 3.740 complex caae, this cover lheet WIii mad for 8tatlallcal purpoaea CML CASE COYER SHEET ... INSTRUCTIONS HOW COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET CM-010 Plalntlffs and Olhera FUlng Fl..t Papena. you are fllfng lrllt paper (fDr example. complaint) civil case, you muat complele and Ille. along with your firlt paper, the Civil Cue Coww Sheet contained page Thia lnfonnaUon wll uaec:l compile atatlallca about the typea and numbers C8IN flied. You fflUlt complete llem8 through the sheet. llam you must check one box for the cue type that best delcrlbae the cue. the caae Ila both and more apeclffo type oaae liated item chec:k the more apaclllc one. the C8l8 has mulllple causes action, check the box that beat Indicates the primary cauae ac:tion. 8lllll you cxmpletlng the ahaet, axamples the caaea that belong under each cue type 11am are pnwfded below. cover sheet muat flied only wllh your lnlUal paper. Fallure fill! cover lheet wllh the lllt paper flied clvll cue may IUbject party, Ill counsel, bolh l8nCllons under rulaa 2.30 and 3.220 the callfomla Rules Court. Parllaa Rule 3.740 Collectlona ea.... co11ect1ons cue under rule 3.740 defined action for recavery money OWlld eum lllal8d certain that not more than $26,000. exclullve lnterNt and attorneya fees, arising from transacflon which property, aervlcel, money was acquired credit. oollecllona cae doaa not lnc1Ude aclfon 888lclng the following: (1) tort clamar,ea, (2) punlllve damagaa, (3) recove,y real property, (4) recovery peraonal property, (6) pnaJudgment writ attachment. The ld8ldllicalfon cue rule 3.740 GOllecllons cue thla form means that wlU exempt from the general llme-for-Nlvlca raqajramns and caae management rules. unlela dlfandant flies 181pOnslve pleading. rule 3.740 colledlons case wDI IUbJecl the raqul181118nls for service and obtaining judgment rule 3.740. Partin Complex Caaa. ccmplax C11111 only, parties must also usa lhe C/111 Case Cover Sheet designate whether the case complex. plalntfff beHevaa the cue complex under Nie 3.400 the Callfomla Rules Court, thll must Indicated complallng the appapllale baxaa Items Ind plalnfllf dNlgnates oase complex, the oovar ahael muat aerved with the complelnt partias the acllon. darandant may file and serve later lhan the time Ill find appamance jolnder the plalntlfta dallgnallan, counter-clallgnallan that the case not complex, or, the plalnUff has made deelgnalion, dellgnation that the case c:amplex. CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Conlract BnNlch ContractNVananty (08) Bleacfl Renta11Le118 Contract (nol rdlwfil delurer or~~ eon==-,~, Britach Connet/ Warranty Olher Bntach COntrldNVananty Collaclfonl (e.g., fflCIIIY owad, open book accounlll) (DI) Collec:lon Cella Ballar Plalnllf Olher Promlaaoiy NotelCollec:tiona Cae Insurance Covalqe (notp,Dlltlonaly comp/eJt) (11) Auto 8ubrogllllon Olher Coverage Olhar Contract (37) Contractual Ftaucl Other Connet Dllpul8 RNIPrope,ty EmJnent DomatnnlMHIMI Condemnation (14) Wrongful Evlcllon (33) other Real Properly (e,t.. quiet Ille) (28) Writ PoNeulon Real Praperty Mortgage Forac:IOIUllt Quiet Tltllt Other Real Property (not eminent ctomu,. landbdltnanl, fcndoalnJ Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Raalclenllel (32) Dlllgs (38) (lhe oaae inwDlwa.., dnlos. check 1111a ltm; ofll8Mfse. ,eport COmmen:1111 Resldenlllll) JudlclalRavlaw Aallt Forfellwa (05) Pellllon Re:AlbltrallonAward (11) Writ Mandala (02) Wril-Admlillilrall.e Mandamus WII-Mandamua Llmled Court CaeMaaar Wrlt-Olher Llmllecl Coult ca. Review Olher Judldal Review (SI) Review Haallh Offlaar On1er Nollce ofAppe........, Commtploner Appull CML CASE COVER SHEET