5 f3
`(—15
`57;.
`
`TL",
`
`3:
`:
`v
`\
`\
`6
`(I
`7
`\x 8
`Q
`\>
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`
`9
`10
`
`,1 1
`
`12»
`
`‘
`
`13
`l4
`15
`16
`l 7
`18
`19
`20
`
`23
`24
`
`26
`27
`28
`
`x 21
`I m 22
`% 25
`
`g E
`
`.
`
`i
`
`,
`
`I
`
`i
`
`F E L E D
`SAN MATEO COUNTY
`
`‘
`
`1 f
`KAMALA D. HARRIS
`Attorney General of Ca i ornia
`ANNE MICHELLE BURR
`Supervising Deputy Attorney General
`KAREN W. YIU
`Deputy'Attorney General
`State Bar No. 23 071 0.
`1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor
`PO. Box 70550
`' Oakland, CA 94612-0550
`Telephone: (5 10) 879-1245
`Fax: (510) 622-2270
`Email: Karen.Yiu@doj.ca.gov
`Attorneys for Defendant
`State of California
`
`.
`
`~
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
`
`‘
`
`.
`
`I
`
`»
`
`.
`
`v.
`
`'
`
`'
`
`-
`
`'
`
`4
`
`-
`
`.
`
`.
`
`‘
`
`‘
`
`"
`
`.
`
`I
`
`A
`
`GERALDINE AND MARK TEMPLO,
`Case No. l6CIV0069l
`Plaintiff, DEFENDANT STATE OF
`CALIFORNIA’S REQUEST FOR
`JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
`PLEADINGS ON THE THIRD CAUSE
`JAMES SHI MING LU, STATE OF
`OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFFS’
`COMPLAINT
`CALIFORNIA AND DOES 1 to 10,
`December 21, 2016
`Defendants. Date:
`9:00 am.
`Time:
`Dept:
`I? IL
`{VI
`on. J nathan E Karesh
`Judge:
`Not Set
`Trial Date:
`Action Filed: July 29, 2016
`
`.
`
`I
`
`I
`
`,
`
`‘
`
`.
`
`I
`
`,
`
`.
`
`*
`
`.
`
`'
`
`Under Evidence Code section 451, subdivision (a) and section 452, subdivisions (0), and
`(d), defendant State of California requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following
`documents in considering defendant State of California’s motion for judgment on the pleadings
`on the Third Cause of Action.
`(1) Demurrer of Defendant State of California to the First Amended Complaint of Bob
`Planthold filed 1n Bob Planthold v State of Calzfornza er al. San Francisco County Superior
`15 CIV— ouEsITm
`, RJN
`Request for Judicial Notice
`
`'
`
`.
`
`-
`
`1
`Defendant State of Califo
`sinRIN
`on them Third Cause of Action0 of Plaintiffs
`
`I
`
`I
`
`Spoup
`
`IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII
`
`

`

`N
`
`\OOOVONM-hb)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`' 12
`V13
`
`14
`
`15
`‘16
`17
`
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`24
`25
`26
`:7
`28
`
`_
`
`Court Case No. CGC-l3~534195. (A true and correct copy of document, Without exhibit, is
`attached hereto as Exhibit A);
`(2) Order Sustaining, Without Leave to Amend, the Demurrer of DefendantState of
`California to the First Amended Complaint otZBob Planthold, filed in Bob Planthold v. State of
`California, et al., San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-13—534195. (A true and
`correct copy of document is attached hereto as Exhibit B);
`(3) Notice of Hearing on Demurrer and Demurrer of Defendants/Respondents State of
`California, California Coastal Commission, and State Coastal Conservancy to the Verified
`Complaint, filed in Tom Pappas, et al. v. State of California, et al., Santa Barbara County
`Superior Court Case No. .1417388. (A true and correct copy of document is attached hereto as
`' Exhibit C);
`(4) Notice of Hearing on Demurrer; Demurrer of State of California, California Coastal
`Commission, and State Coastal Conservancy to the First Amended Complaint and Petition, filed,
`in Toni Poppas, et al. v. State of California, at al. , Santa Barbara County Superior Court Case No.
`1417388. (A true and correct copy of document is attached hereto as Exhibit D);
`(5) Tentative Ruling on Demurrer of State Defendants to First Amended Complaint, etc.,
`issued in. Tom Pappas, et al. v. State of California, at al., Santa Barbara County Superior Court
`Case No. 1417388. (A true and correct copy of document is attached hereto as Exhibit E);
`(6) Petition for Writ of Mandate, filed in Union ole Vecinos, et al. v. Los Angeles Superior
`Court; State of California, California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Case No.
`B247810.~ (A true and correct copy of document is attached hereto as Exhibit F);
`State of‘California’s Preliminary Response to‘Petition for Writ of Mandate, filed in
`(7)
`Union a’e Vecinos v. Los Angeles Superior Court; State of California, California Court of Appeal,
`Second Appellate District, Case No. B247810. (A true and correct copy of document is attached
`hereto as Exhibit G); and
`(8) Order Denying Mandate Petition as'to Respondent, State of- California, filed in Union
`de Vecinos v. Los Angeles Superior Court, State of California, California Court of Appeal,
`
`t
`
`i
`
`2
`Defendant State of California’s RJN in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
`on the Third Cause of Action of Plamtifis’ Complaint (16CIV00691)
`
`

`

`U.)
`
`\lONUt-b
`
`I
`
`Second Appellate District, Case No. B247810. (A true and correct copy of document is attached
`. hereto as Exhibit H);
`(Judicial notice of the. decisional law of this State is mandatory under Evidence Code section '_
`. 451, subdivision (a). The court may take judicial notice of official actsof a judicial department of
`this State, and records of any court of this State under Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions
`(c) and (d), respectively.
`Here, the trial court rulings on the State of California’s demurrers in Bob Planthold v. State
`of California, et al. (Exhibit B) and Tom Pappas, et al. v. State of California, et al. (Exhibit E)!
`and the appellate court’s dismissal of the State of California in Union de Vecz‘nos 13. Los Angeles
`Superior Court, State of California (Exhibit H) are the decisional law of this state. The court
`orders are also official acts of the San Francisco County Superior Court, Santa Barbara County
`Superior Court, and the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District. They show that
`trial and appellate courts have ruled that the State of California was improperlynamed as a
`defendant in those actions.
`The State of Galifornia’s filings relating to the demurrers (Exhibits A, C, D), and the
`petition for writ of mandate and the State of California’s preliminary response filed in Union de
`Vecinos v. Los Angeles Superior Court, State of California (Exhibits F, G) are records of the
`above~mentioned courts in which the documents were filed. The documents provide context to
`the courts ’. rulings. Therefore, Exhibits A through H are relevant.
`
`.
`
`1 The undersigned counsel is informed and believes that the trial court adopted the
`tentative ruling in sustaining the State of California’s demurrer without leave to amend on the
`ground that the State of California was improperly named as a defendant in that action.
`aJ
`Defendant State of California’s RJN in Support of Motion'for Judgment on the Pleadings
`on the Third Cause of Action of Plaintiffs’ Complaint (I6CIVOO691)
`
`

`

`Dated: November A, 2016
`
`SF2016900653
`907 ] 7220.doc
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`KAMALA D. HARRIS
`Attorney General of California
`ANNE MICHELLE BURR
`‘ Supervising Deputy Attorney General
`
`KAREN W. YIU
`Deputy Attorney General
`Attorneys for Defendant'
`State of California
`
`4
`Defendant State of Califomia’s RJN in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
`on the Third Cause of Action of Plaintiffs’ Complaint (16CIV00691)
`
`.
`
`u.)
`
`4;
`
`Ln
`
`ON
`
`‘\1
`
`11
`
`12
`13]
`-14
`15
`
`16
`17
`
`~18
`
`1 9
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`27
`28
`
`

`

`__________._._.H___..__H.._H__n.l_._L_e__
`
`- EXHIBIT A -
`
`- EXHIBIT A -
`
`_
`
`

`

`~
`
`.
`
`’
`
`'
`
`KAMALA D. HARRIS
`Attorney General of California
`TAMAR PACHTBR
`Supervising Deputy Attorney General
`'.
`NELSONR. RICHARDS
`Deputy Attorney General
`State Bar No. 246996
`455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
`San Francisco, CA 94102- 7004
`Telephone: (415) 703— 5559.
`Fax: (415) 703—1234
`E—mail: Nelson. Richards@doj. ca. gov
`Attorneys for Defendant
`State ofCaZz'form'a
`
`-
`
`K
`
`’
`
`-
`
`‘
`
`‘
`
`'
`
`.
`
`COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`BOB PLANTHOLDF,
`
`‘
`
`Case No..CGC~13~5341'95
`
`.
`
`,
`
`_-V-
`
`STATE OF CALH‘ORNIA; SENATE
`COMMITTEE ,ON TRANSPORTATION
`AND HOUSING; CALIFORNIA STATE
`SENATE; CALIFORNIA STATE
`ASSEMBLY; SENATE RULES
`. COMMITTEE; SENATOR MARK ?
`DeSAULNIER; ASSEMZBLYIVIEMBER
`ISADORE HALL, III; DOES 1 through 50,
`inclusive,
`
`,
`
`’
`
`;
`
`_
`
`be
`
`\o.oo\10\'t}x¢.
`
`.10'
`
`11
`.12
`13‘ s
`'. 14
`
`16'
`
`18
`
`19
`20
`.21;
`- 22
`23
`. 24.
`
`25
`2:6
`27
`'- 28.
`
`Plaintiff,
`' DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT STATE
`OF CALIFORNIA TO THE FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT OF BOB .
`PLANTH OLD
`(1) Notice ~ of Hearing;
`(2) Demurrei'; ‘and, ‘
`(3) Memorandum of Points and
`Authorities.
`Feb. 21 2014 '
`Date:
`9:30 am
`Tifnei
`302
`Dept:
`Hon Marla]. Miller
`Judge:
`Action Filed: Sept. 12, 2013
`Reservation No: 011.714- 03
`
`Defendants.
`
`'
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-
`
`State ofCA’s Demurrer to lst'Am. C9mpl..(CGC—l3-534l95) 1'~
`
`

`

`5
`
`.
`
`7
`
`‘
`
`TABLE .OF'CONTENTS.
`
`.
`
`a
`
`a
`
`.
`
`Page
`Notice ofHearing
`.......... '
`................ ' ..................... ; ......... 1
`....... l
`Demurr'er
`.............. '. .......... ~
`Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities......................................; ...... '.'. ................... - ............. i ....... 2
`Introduction ..............................................
`.: ................................. ‘. ........ '. ........ . ........................ i
`.......... 3
`Background........................................ .............................................................................................. 3 :
`......................................... , ............... . ........... . .L, ............................................ 5'
`Argument
`I.
`‘ Standard ofRevieW.........;‘.........~ ......................................
`........ i ................. ' .5
`The State of California Is Not a Proper Party to a Section 1983 Canse of
`. II. ~
`Action, and the Comt Should Therefore Sustain the State 3 Demurrer to the
`First and Third Causes ofAction
`The State of California Is Not a Proper Party to the Second and Fourth
`Causes of Action Because No Relief Is Available Against the State
`6
`.................... ‘
`........................................... i .......... 8 .~
`
`_
`
`III.
`
`Conclusion
`
`..... 6
`
`'
`
`i
`' State of CA’s Demurrexj to lst'Am. Compl. (CGC~l3-534l95)
`
`.
`
`.xn'ww
`
`\iox,m
`
`00
`
`10
`
`111
`
`12
`
`1.3
`'14
`.15.
`16'
`
`17
`
`1’8
`
`>
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`« 24
`52.5.
`.326
`27
`28
`
`

`

`{m
`
`,fl "‘4
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`.
`
`~
`
`‘
`.......................................... ~ ....... 5
`
`.
`
`.
`
`..
`
`-
`
`'
`
`,
`
`.
`
`.
`
`‘
`
`.
`
`................................ 5
`
`~
`
`.
`
`.......................... 5
`
`~
`
`.
`
`-
`
`.
`
`.
`
`5
`
`_
`
`,
`
`.............
`
`5
`
`.................
`
`~
`
`.
`
`.......... 6.
`
`I
`
`........................................... ‘ ..................
`
`..
`
`-
`
`’
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`............. 6
`
`.
`
`.
`
`‘
`
`00\]O\
`
`\O
`
`10
`1.1
`
`'12
`
`13
`
`CASES
`Blank v. Kirwan '
`(1985) 39 Cal‘..3’d 311
`Cedar Fair, LP. 12. City of Santa Clara
`(2011) 194 Ca1.App.4th1150, ...................... ...............
`Kaye: v Bowen
`(2010) 189 Cal App 4th 647 .......... ‘ ............................ ,
`Picton v. Anderson Union H igh School Dist.
`(1996) 50 Ca1.App.4th 726 .............. f ......
`State v. Superior Court
`(1974) 12 Cal.3d 237
`Will v. Michpepr. os‘az‘e Police
`(1989) 491 US. 58
`'Wolfe v. Strankman
`(9th Cir. 2004) 392.F.~3d 358mm .......
`. STATUTES
`Code of Civil Procedure
`........ ~ ......... ‘
`.' § 379, subd. (20(1)
`§ 430.10, subd. (d) ............... '.'. .....................................
`. §430.01.o, subd. (e)...........:.; .............
`..
`Govemmefit Code
`.................................. . ...................
`§ 11040 et seq. ........... , ....... f
`...... -
`~7
`........... 7
`............................ -. ........
`§ 11150 .................... ; .....
`........ I
`................................................... 7
`§ 11157
`............ _ ........... 7
`§ 11250 ............................................................................ .
`.............................
`§ 11253 ..................... ' ...............
`7
`............
`United States Code, Tit1e 42
`§ 1983
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`
`__
`
`................. -
`
`.
`
`............................. 5
`........................ 5
`................... 5
`
`h
`
`.
`
`i
`
`.
`
`1
`
`7
`
`-
`
`.
`
`.............. 3, 5, 6
`
`C.ali.£9_1:r_li§L.Cpp§1itution
`‘ A1ficleI,§2
`.................
`Article I, § 7 .................................... ' ................
`
`~
`
`_
`
`.....
`
`.
`
`.............................
`5
`.......... ~ .................... 4
`
`ii
`State of CA’s Demurrcr to 1st Am: Comp]. (CGC—113-534195)
`
`/
`
`..
`
`‘
`
`,
`
`.14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`1-7
`
`18
`
`'19
`
`20
`21
`22‘
`
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`.27
`28
`
`'
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`'
`
`-
`
`”
`
`‘
`
`'
`
`.
`
`.
`
`'
`................................ . ..... 6 ,
`
`~
`
`.
`
`.
`
`_
`
`

`

`4:.
`
`.ui
`
`O\
`
`,\1
`
`.00..
`
`0
`
`.
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`14'
`15
`
`~ 16
`17
`18'
`
`'
`
`~19
`
`26‘
`21.
`
`212
`
`23
`24
`
`2.5
`26
`. 27
`28
`
`.
`
`...........
`
`.......................................... 4
`
`United States Constitution
`First Amendment ..........
`.................... '
`RULES
`Joint Rules of the Senate and Assernbly
`.~
`.............................. '. ..........
`................ 4.
`Rule 6(0) ................................................ -
`Rule 10. 6 ....................................................................................... ‘. .................... ' ....................... 4
`............................
`4 '
`Rule 54(a) ......
`......
`..... ‘ ........ ............... 4
`Rule 61(a)(12)......-.a..;, ................................................. .
`Rule 61 ........................... 1..."; ................ p": ....................................................... , ....................... 4
`.....................
`.................. '.. 4
`Rule 62(a)
`Local Rules of Court' for the San Francisco Superior Court
`Rule 2 6(C) .................. '
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`................ L ........ 3
`
`iii
`State of CA’s Demurrer to lst Am. comp]. (CGC-l3-534] 95)
`
`

`

`p.-
`
`gooqokmpmwo
`
`.
`
`‘ NOTICE OF HEARING
`TO ALL PARi‘IES AND THEIR IA"l”'l‘.ORI\D§lYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE. that on February 21, 2014, at 9;30'a.m. or as soon thereafter as
`the matter may be heard, in~Department 302 of the San Francisco County SuperiorCourthouse,
`located at 400 McAllister St, San Francisco, California, Defendant State of California will
`demur to the First Amended Complaint for lnjunctive Relief and Other Appropriate Relief filed
`byPlaintift Bob'Planthold on the grounds that (1) the complaint suffers from a defect, or
`misjoinder of parties; and (2) the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
`action. The demurrer will he'hased on this notice ‘of hearing, the attached demurrer, the. .
`accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, arid the pleadings, records, and files in i
`this action.
`
`'
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Dated: January 17, 2014
`
`‘
`
`Respectfully Submitted, .
`- KAMALA D HARRIS
`Attorney General of California
`TAMAR PACHTBR
`sin Deputy Attorney General
`Supe
`
`NELSON R. RICHARDS
`Deputy Attorney General
`Attorneys for Defendant
`State of California
`
`‘
`
`, 1
`State of CA’s Demurrer to lst Am. Comp]. (CGC-l3¥534l 95)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`

`

`DEMURRER
`Defendant State‘of California demurs to theFirst Amended Complaint for Injunctive -
`Relief and Other Appropriate Relief filed by Plaintiff Bob Plantholcl and each and every cause of
`action against Defendant State of California on the grounds that;
`‘l.
`The complaint suffers from a defect or misjoinder of parties (Code Civ. Proc,
`§ 43 o.1o,~ subd. (d)).'
`The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (Code
`2.
`Civ. Proc., §43010, subd. (e))
`WHEREFORE Defendant State of California prays as follows:_
`That the demurrer be sustained Without leave to~ amend;
`1.
`'2.
`That Plaintiff take nothing by his amended complaint;
`‘3.
`That judgment be entered in favor ofDefendant State ofTCalifoniia;
`4,
`.That Defendant State of Galifornia be avvarded its costs; and ~
`For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. '
`5.
`Respectfully Submitted,
`Dated. January 17, 2014
`KAMALA D HARRIS
`Attorney General of California
`TAMAR PACHTER
`Super sing eputy A
`ney General
`
`'
`
`i
`
`'xioxmnmw
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13.
`‘14
`15'
`'16'
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`20
`'21
`
`‘
`
`22
`'23
`24"
`
`25
`
`2.6
`27
`
`~
`
`,
`
`'
`
`,
`
`.
`
`~
`
`NELSON R. RICHARDS
`Deputy Attorney General
`‘ ArtOrneyafor Defendant
`State of California
`
`'
`
`- 2
`State of CA's Demunier to lst Am. Cbmpl. (060413534195)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`

`

`.
`
`.
`
`. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff Bob Planthold alleges that state legislators and legislative comrhittees violated his
`state and federal constitutional rights by passinga concurrent resolution to name the western span
`of the San FranciscoQOakland'Bay Bridge after Willie L. Brown, Jr. The first amended complaint
`names the State of California as a defendant. (Sec First 'Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief
`' and Other Appropri‘ate‘Relie’f (Am. .Compl.) 1] 5, at p. 1.)1 The State is not, however, a proper
`defendant under any of the four legal theories that Mr. Planthold alleges. He brings his two ‘
`federal constitutional causes of action .under 42 U S. C. § 1983 (section 1983), but California is
`not a “person” within the meaning of that statute, and thus it' is not a proper party to those two
`causes of action. His two state constitutional claims seek injunctive relief thatthe State, as
`distinguished fiom its constituent departments and'agencies, cannot provide. The State is
`therefore misjoined to those claims as Well. Because the State is not a proper party to any of
`Mr. Planthold’s causes of action, it respectfully requeststhat this court sustain. its demmrer,
`' without leave to amend, for misjoinder 'of parties and for failure to state a facts sufficientto’
`constitute a cause of action against the State
`BACKGROUND
`Mr. Planthold filed a complaint on September 12, 2013. The State and non—State
`'3 defendants filed demurrers on November 22, 2013 with a hearing noticed f01 December 20, 2013.
`Mr. Planthold did not oppose the demurrers. On the day before the hearing, he filed the first
`. amended complaint, which added no factual allegations of substance to theoriginal complaint’s
`allegations. The .nevv'material, contained in paragraphs 13, 19, 28, 29, 44—49, and 72 'of the first
`amended complaint, largely sets forth conclusory legal allegations. As aresult, this demurrer is
`substantially the same as the State’s original demurrer.
`
`'
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`g
`1 Pursuant to the Local Rules. of'Conrt for the San‘Fra'nci‘sco Superior Court, rule 2.6(C),
`a courtesy'copy of the first amended complaint is attached to this memorandum as Exhibit A.
`
`3
`State of CA’s Demun'er to lst Am; Comp]. (CGC-13-534195)
`
`‘
`
`.
`
`.
`
`'I
`
`v—A
`
`xoooqa'mnwoam
`
`NHO
`
`
`
`W
`
`43
`
`(3t
`
`\l
`
`00
`
`\O
`
` O
`
`MH
`
`
`
`DJ
`
`-P
`
`U1
`
`ON
`
`\1
`
`00
`
`

`

`//"‘$.-.‘
`
`z
`
`.
`
`.
`
`I
`
`W‘II“)
`
`1
`
`.'
`
`-
`
`.
`
`.
`
`I
`
`5
`
`I.
`
`I
`
`Earlier-this yeaIr‘, Assembly Member Isadore Hall, III, introducedIIAssembly Concurrent
`Resolution Number 65 (Assem. Cone. Res. No. 65, Stats 2013 (2013— 2014 Reg. Sess. ) res.
`Ch 140 p. 831 (Resolution 65)) to name the western span of the Bay Bridge after Willie L. Brown
`Jr., former speaker of the Assembly and former mayor of San Francisco. (Am. Compl. III 1,. 12—
`13.) The first amended complaint alleges two categories of purported harm regarding
`. Resolution 65.
`First, it alleges that the resolution does not comply with the relevant chamber committees’
`-Iguide1ines for naming highways and structures. (Am. Compl. 1“] 16—17.) Those guidelines say I
`that the person honored must be deceased; Mr. Brown is not. (Am. Compl. 'IIjI 16—17.) They say
`that the auth01 of the measure must repiesent the district where the structure is located; Assembly I
`Member Hall’s district is in Los Angeles. (Am.Comp1.‘IIII 12,16—17.) They say the designation I
`
`I
`
`I
`
`i
`
`I
`
`I
`
`must represent community c_;onsensus about 125 pe0p1e have signed a petition against naming the I
`bridge after Mr. Brown and various media outlets have published commentary critical of naming
`the bridge after Mr. Brown. (Am. Comp1.1III 16- 17, 20 25.) The rules also say that the
`designation may not replace an existing designation, unless the proponent makes a good-faith
`effort to uncover opposition to the renaming; no effort was made to uncover. opposition to
`replacing the 1986 informal naming Iof the entire bridge after former sari Francisco Mayor James
`IRudolph (Am Compl 1111 16, 26)
`Second, the first amended complaint alleges that consideration of Resolution 65 was
`“fraught with multiple rules violations and the arbitrary suspension of rules” governing the
`legislative process. (Am Comp]. 128. ) It alleges that Assembly Member Hall introduced
`Resolution 65I on June 12, 2013 in violation of Joint Rule 54(a),w which says bills muste ~
`I introduced by February I1 8 of the fist yea1 of the regular session. (Am. Comp1.1fiI 3O 31 ) It
`alleges that the Senate Comniittee on Transportation and Housing suspended Joint Rule 62(a)’s
`notice requirements for hearing bills and Rule 61(a)(12)’s requirements on when committees may
`It also alleges that Resolution 65 violates Joint Rule 10.6,. which
`meet. (Am. Compl. ‘IHI 132—362)
`2 Like the complaint, the first amended Complaint relies on Joint Rules 54(aI), 61 (a)(12),
`and 62(a). (See, e, g., Am. Compl. IN 30, 32, 34, 62, 68.) Though we pointed out in our demurrer
`(continued...)
`4
`State of CNS Demurrer to lst Am. Comp}. (coo-1 3-534195)
`
`I
`
`.
`
`em‘w
`
`\]O\£J‘1
`
`-
`
`.10
`
`11
`
`.12
`
`13
`14
`. 15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`I 19
`
`-
`
`.20
`
`21
`22.
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28.
`
`

`

`”‘1
`says the 'short titles of bills may not contain the name of a current or former member of the
`Legislature. (Am. Compl. 1f 37.)
`Based on those two purported grievances, Mr. Planthold alleges four causes of action
`(Am. Compl. 111157—73.) First, he alleges that he, as a resident of California and San Francisco,
`has an “ownership interest” in the Bay Bridge, and he contends that the procedures the
`Legislature used'to pass ResolutiOn 65 violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment due process
`rights in that interest. (Am. Compl. 111150 56. ) Second, he alleges the sarne theory under article I
`section 7 of the California Constitution. (Am. Compl. 1M. 57—63 ) Third, he alleges that
`“Defendants’ disregard of the procedural safeguards provided by Joint Rule 61 and other rules”
`' violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble, the
`right to expressive association, theright to petition the government for redress of grievances, and
`' the right to be free from compelled speech. (Am. Compl. 1“] 646 8) Fourth, he alleges similar
`speech-related theories under article 1, section 2 of the California Constitution; (Am. Compl.
`1111 69—73.) ,
`
`'51
`
`7 .~
`
`'
`
`'
`
`.
`
`‘
`
`’
`
`.
`
`‘
`
`I.
`
`‘
`
`STANDARD OF'REVI‘EW
`To properly join a defendant to a cause of action, the plaintiff must assert a “right to relief”
`against that'defendant.~ (Code Civ; Froc, §3~79,_.subd. (a)(l).) A defendant may challenge
`misj oinder by demurrer. (Id, § 430.10, subd. (d).) .A defendant may also demur to a complaint
`for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Id, § 43 0. l 0, [Subd (e).) When
`reviewing a complaint for'failure to state a claim, the Court treats all material facts properly
`pleaded in the complaint as true and determines whether those facts constitute a causeof action. ~
`(Blank v. Kirq (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The Court need not acceptthe plaintiff’s f
`“contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact er law.” (Ibid) The Court may also consider
`(. .continued)
`to the complaint that Joint Rule 6(0) makes clear that those rules to not apply to concurrent
`” 1esolutions, the first amended complaint asseit's
`“The ‘Joint' Rules apply to assembly concurrent
`resolutions, such as ACR 65, in the same way that they a'pply to other types of legislation such as
`bills ’
`(Am. Compl. 1128. ) This Court need not accept as true such conclusory legal allegations.
`\
`5
`State of CA’s Demurrer to lst Am. Compl. (CGC-13~534l95)
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`‘
`
`.
`
`'
`
`,
`
`'
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`~
`
`)
`
`11
`
`'
`
`12.
`‘ 13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`1t
`18
`
`19
`20’
`
`21
`22
`23
`. 24
`25
`26,
`27
`2'8
`
`

`

`.1
`
`l.
`
`judicially noticeable matters. (Grossinoaz‘ Union High School Dist 1) Call Dept. Education
`, (2008) 169 Cal. App. 4111 869, 879) “Leave to amend should be denied Where the facts are not in
`dispute and the nature of the claim 1S clear but no liability exists under substantive law.”
`(Lawrence v Bank of America (1985) 163 Cal. App 3d 431,436)
`II. . THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS NOT A PROPER PARTY To A SECTION 1983 CAUSE OF
`ACTION, AND THE COURT SHOULD THEREFORE SUSTAIN THE‘STATE’S DEMURRER
`TO THE FIRST AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION .
`Section 1983 plovides that “[e]very person who, under cOlor Of any statute, ordinance,
`regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or.
`causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States .
`. to the deprivation of any rights,‘
`privileges, or immunities seemed by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured
`.” (42 U.S.C. § 1983.) The term “person,” does not include states, and thus states cannot be .
`natned as defendants in section 1983 actions. (Will v. Mich. Dept, OfState Police (1989) 491 US.
`58, 64' [“a State isnot aperson within the meaning of § 1983,”].)' Courts routinely apply that rule
`in section 1983 suits naming the State of California as a defendant. (See, e.'g., Wolfe v.
`Stranicman (9th Cir. 2004) 392- F.3d 358, 364 [“A state and its Officials sued in their Official
`capacity are not considered ‘persons’ Within the meaning of § 1983. . . . The State of California _ _‘
`may not, therefore, be a defendant in this case”. (citations, brackets, 'andquotation marks .
`omitted)]. This Court should sustain the State’s demurrer to Mr. Planthold’s first and third causes _
`of action because the State cannot be a party to those causes of action. Moreover, these defects
`cannot be cured, so the Court should sustain the demurrer Without leave to amend.
`III. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Is NOT A PROPER PARTY To THE SECOND AND FOURTH
`CAUSES OF ACTION BECAUSE No RELIEF Is AVAILABLE AGAINST THE STATE .
`
`‘
`
`Mr.P1anthold’S state constitutional claims suffer from a defect Similar to his federal
`constitutional claims. He cannot name California as a party because Mr. Planthold cannot
`establish a right of relief against the State itself That 13, even if he wins on the merits, the State
`cannotgive him .the‘ relief he seeks.
`/
`. The California Supreme Court’s decision inSz‘aIfe v. Superior Court is instructive. ’ (See
`6-.
`State ofCA‘s Demurrer to lst Am. Comp]. (06013534195) '_
`
`.
`
`'
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`14'
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`I
`
`19
`20
`21
`‘ 22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`.28'
`
`

`

`[\J
`
`(AK/1.1}.
`
`.10 ll
`
`12 A‘
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`16
`.17.
`
`18
`1.9
`20
`‘21
`.22.
`23
`
`24.
`25'
`
`26
`27
`28
`
`.
`
`State v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237.) In that ‘case, the California Coastal Zone
`Conservation Commissiondenied a developer’s permit request. The developer filed a petition for
`' writ of mandate .seekingjreview of the denial as well as declaratory, injunctive, and other relief.
`The petition named the State of California as a respondent. The trial court overruled a demurrer
`. challenging the State as arparty. On appeal, the California Supreme Court. held that the trial court
`should have sustained the demurrer because the State could not provide the relief that the
`developers wanted: .
`These demurrers should also have been sustained, as no relief is available against . . .
`Insofar as [the developer] seeks a review of the Commission 3 denial of
`the state
`its permit, only the Commission and its members may set aside the decision. The
`fourth and fifth causes of action both relate to the constitutionality of the [Coastal
`Zone Conservation] Act on its face, and the petition contains no allegations
`establishing any right to declaratory relief against the state (as distinguished from the
`Commission acting as its agent) or against the Commission employees 1n this regard.
`(Id. at p. 255 )
`That reasoning comports with the fact that different state agencies and departments have
`separate and independent functions. By statute, the civil administration of the state by the
`Governor is accomplished through the division of the executive and administrative work into
`statutory departments. (Gov. Code, § 11150.) Other functions are carried out by independent
`agencies. For instance, the Attorney General acts as counsel to state departments and agencies.
`(Id, § 11040 et seq., § 11157.) While one state department may render assistance to another,
`such assistance must not degrade the assisting department’s operations. (Id, § 11253.) Certain
`financial matters are also separate: services and materials rendered by oneagency to another are
`charges the agency receiving the services or materials must pay. (Id, , § 1125 0.)
`Here, the first amended complaint asks the court to enjoin the State from renaming the Bay
`(See Am. Compl. ad damnum clause 1] 3, at p. 13. ) But it alleges no facts showing that
`Bridge
`the State, as distinguished from its constituent departments and agencies, will carry out
`Resolution 65. In other words, this Court cannot grant Mr. Planthold any relief against the State.
`It should therefore sustain the State’s demurrer to the second and fourth causes of action without
`leave to amend;
`
`‘
`
`'
`
`.
`
`i
`
`.
`
`r
`
`.
`
`p
`
`~
`
`'
`
`.
`
`7
`State of CA’s Demurrer to 151 Am. Comp]. (CGC~13~534195)
`
`.
`
`'
`
`-
`
`'
`
`I
`
`‘
`
`

`

`. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, the State respectfully requests that the court'sustain‘its demurrer,
`dismies the first amended complaint Without leave to amend, and enter judgment in its favor.
`
`Dated: January .1 7,2014
`
`-oqom~oxm4>
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`3A20‘13113i166
`40859847.doc
`
`1.5 16"
`
`’
`
`.17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`. 2o
`21
`22
`23
`24
`'25
`
`~ 26
`27
`'28
`
`Respectfully Sunmitted,
`f
`K—AMALA D. HARRIS
`Attorney General of California
`TAMAR PACHTEIR
`isin‘ Deputy
`ttomey General.
`Supe
`
`1
`
`‘
`
`‘
`
`‘
`
`.
`
`NELSON R. RICHARDS
`Deputy Attorney. General
`Attorneys for Defendant
`State of California
`
`8
`State of CA’s Demurrer to 1st Am. Comply. (CGCr1'3'—534195)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`1
`
`.
`
`.
`
`

`

`I
`
`,
`
`~
`
`DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL
`Case Name: Planthold, Bob v. State of CA, et :11“
`" CGC—13-534195
`No.:
`I declare:
`I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the
`California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or
`older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the
`Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United
`States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondence placed in the internal
`‘ mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited With the United States .
`Postal Service with postage thereon fully p1 epaid that same day in the ordinary course of
`business
`On J anugy 17, 2014, I served the attached
`DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO THE FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT 0F BOB PLANTHOLD
`by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in the internal mail collection
`system at the Office of the Attorney General at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000, San
`Francisco, CA. 94102-7004, addressedas follows:
`
`i
`
`,
`
`. Cara L. Jenkins
`Deputy Legislative Counisel
`Office of Legislative Counsel
`925 L Street
`Sacramento, CA, 95814
`
`'
`
`\
`
`.
`
`.
`
`‘
`
`~
`
`~
`
`~
`
`’
`
`~
`
`.
`
`_
`
`,
`
`~
`
`'
`
`G. Whitney Leigh.
`Gonzalez & Leigh LLP
`744 Montgomery Street, Fifth Floor
`San Francisco CA 94111
`Thomas I. Gray, Esq;
`Attorney at Law
`LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS J. GRAY
`3325 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 510
`LosAngeles CA 900101758
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia the foregoing is true ,
`and correct and that this declaration was executed on January 17,2014, at San Francisco,
`California
`
`Gloria D. l3riones
`mmDeclarant
`
`..
`
`'.
`
`'
`
`'
`
`'
`
`smoxanms
`40866983.doc
`
`WV” 'MW
`
`Signature
`
`,
`
`

`

`
`
`,,_.__.__l__l__
`
`.__.__l__l__
`
`_
`
`_
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`,
`
`'
`
`KAMALA D. HARRIS
`Attorney General of California
`TAMAR PACHTER
`Supervising Deputy Attorney General
`'
`NELSONR RICHARDS
`Deputy Attorney General
`State Bar No. 246996
`455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
`San Francisco, CA 94102—7004
`' Telephone: (415) 703— 5559
`Fax: (415) 703— 1234 .
`B—mail: NelsonRichards@doj ”ca gov
`Attorneys for Defendant State of Calzfomza
`
`APR 0 I 2014
`CLERK OF THE COURT
`GINA GONZALES
`Deputy Clerk
`
`BY:
`
`..SUPERIORCOURTOEIHBSTATEOECALEEORNLA‘....
`COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
`
`..
`
`.
`
`09$].cn.u:.;:.mi\)
`
`1'0
`11.
`"12
`
`13
`14
`
`15
`
`~16
`
`1