DORIGINAL

JUL 30 2015

FILEDSuperior Court orCalifornia

COllDty Of Los Angeles

Shem 1\.~e vOIcer/ClerkBy' . ,Deputy

1 MICHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney (SBN 111529x)2 RICHARD M. BROWN, General Counsel for Water & Power (SBN 41277)

RICHARD TOM, Assistant General Counsel (SBN 127292)3 JULIE RILEY, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 197407)4 TINA SHIM, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 233910)

111 North Hope Street5 P.O.Box51111-Room340 A~4536 Los Angeles, California 900 12 ~oOD~

Telephone Number (213) 367-2372 . .r- 067 Facsimile (213) 367-4588 {) eP JJ .. 0

E-mail: tina.shim@ladwp.com~ C" NO FEE-6103 GOV'T CODE8 C/~9

Attorneys for Plaintiff, CITY OF LOS ANGELES,10 acting by and through the LOS ANGELES11 DEPARTMENTOFWATERANDPOWER

12

20 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT21 OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,

8 S157,0 S6

1

Case No.

VERIFIED COMPLAINT ANDPETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATEFOR DECLARATORY ANDINJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Cal. Const., art. I, 1;Code Civ. Proc. 1085, 1086;Gov. Code 6250 et seq.)

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Petitioner,

Respondent.

vs.

, '~-

23

19

18

22

13

14

15CITY OF LOS ANGELES, acting by and )

16 through the LOS ANGELES )17 DEPARTMENTOFWATERAND )

POWER, )))))))))

-------------- )

25_,

26-,!....:,~.

2~'..:.-,

22g--

r-_

I,I 288489 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

2

3

4

5

'6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Los Angeles Department of Water

and Power (LADWP) files this complaint and petitions this court for writ of mandate to

prevent the release of its customers' confidential personal information by the

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to the San Diego Union-

Tribune, LLC (Requestor), pursuant to a California Public Records Act (CPRA), Gov.

Code 6250 et seq., request. MWD intends to release the names and home addresses of

LADWP customers that participated in MWD's Turf Removal Rebate Program (Turf

Program) to Requestor, a major metropolitan newspaper, for potential publication. None

ofLADWP's customers were told that they had waived their constitutional right to

privacy by accepting this government-funded rebate money to help conserve water. Not

only that, but LADWP customers were not given notice that their information might be

17 disclosed, and did not consent to this disclosure. The LADWP brings this "Reverse-

18 CPRA" action pursuant to Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (2012)19

20

21

22

23

2425,.)26'

2l)28"

c)

202 Cal.App.4th 1250.

II. PARTIES

2. Petitioner is and was, at all relevant times, a municipal utility that purchases water from

Respondent, who funds Respondent's water conservation programs, and whose

customers participated in Respondent's water conservation programs, including the Turf

Program, which paid money to Petitioner's customers to replace lawn with artificial

grass or drought-friendly landscaping.

2

288489 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24c,::

25. !26'"

c.:27 .

"- ..'

r ..

..~ -

r-

3. Respondent is and was, at all relevant times, a regional water wholesaler that delivers

water to twenty-six cities and water agencies serving nineteen million people in six

counties. Respondent is funded by water purchases from its member agencies.

Respondent helps its member agencies to develop increased water conservation,

recycling, storage, and other resource-management programs.

4. Requestor is and was, at all relevant times, a media company that submitted a CPRA

request to Respondent for information, including names and addresses, of all individuals

that received money from the Turf Program.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this court because this action arises under

California state law, Respondent resides in the County of Los Angeles, and

. Respondent's actions occurred and continue to occur in theCounty of Los Angeles.

IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Cal. Const., art. I, 1)6. MWD funded, created, and operated its Turf Program in part as a response to Governor

Jerry Brown's April 1, 2014 executive order that California is in a drought and 50

million square feet of lawn and ornamental turf must be replaced with drought tolerant

landscapes. (Ex. A.) The Tur.fProgram was the largest of its kind in the nation, and has

been so successful that MWD has stated it had achieved its program goal of stimulating

interest in turf removal to the point that government incentives were no longer

necessary for the long term. (Ex. B.) The program totaled $450 million in funds, will

remove over 150 million square feet of turf in Southern California, and will save 80,000

3

288489 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

acre-feet of water per year. That is equal to the amount of water used by 160,000

households in one year. (Id.) All funds were exhausted on July 8, 2015. (Id.)

7. City of Los Angeles residents alone reached half of Governor Jerry Brown's statewide

turf replacement goal. With only 10% of the state's population, Los Angeles residents

will successfully remove almost 25 million square feet of turf by the end ofsummer.

(Ex. C.) Approximately 7,800+ Los Angeles residents participated in the Turf Program,

with the assistance of an estimated 60 private landscaping companies that were able to

directly receive the rebate for their work. (Decl. of David Wright, p. 2; Ex. C.)

Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that approximately 20% of

Respondent's Turf Program recipients were LADWP customers. (Decl. of David

Wright, p. 2.)

8. Respondent was created by an Act of the California Legislature in 1928 to build and

17 operate the Colorado River Aqueduct, and is the largest wholesale water agency in the

18 nation. (.) Respondent is a government,agency because it is19

20

21

22

23

24

25-. i-,

26 --

27,_)28-

.~ )'j

a cooperative of twenty-six member agencies including cities and water agencies that

purchase varying amounts of water each year that will eventually sold to a normal

person, or retail customer. (Id.) All retail customers belonging to one of Respondent's

twenty-six member agencies were eligible for the Turf Program. (Id.) Each member

agency had a contract with MWD that governed the ability of that member agency'sI

customers to participate in the Turf Program. (Decl. of David Wright, p. 2.) Petitioner

and Respondent's contract regarding the Turf Program stated that Petitioner's

confidential customer information could not be released by Respondent. (Ex. D.)4

_1288489 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

2

'3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

9. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Respondent's Turf

Program issued rebates on a first-come, first-served basis until funding was exhausted.

(Ex. E.) Rebates were capped to a maximum amount for some addresses and some

applicants, later in the Turf Program. and $6,000 per residential address. (Ex. F.)

Respondent reserved the right to verify and inspect the removal of turf grass, and

required recipients to adhere to their water agency's rebate terms and conditions, as well

as their local and city landscape ordinances. (Ex. E.) Applicants were able to submit the

application online, and were required to provide proof they were customers of a member

agency with a utility bill. (; Ex. F.) Rebates were mailed

after proof of installation and documentation, including numerous photos, was

submitted and approved. (Ex. E.)

10. Petitioner is informed and believes~ and thereon alleges, that only some applicants were

17 to make a five-year commitment for the turf to be removed, because not all application

18 materials required the five-year commitment. (Decl. of David Wright, p. 3; Ex. G.)19

20

21

22

23

24

25 .. '

26 .: ,I)

Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that online applicants were not

required to make a five-year ~ommitment, but some applicants that submitted a paper

application received notice that a five-year commitment was required. (Id.) Further,

Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that early applicants may have

been required to make a five-year commitment, but later applicants were not required to

make a five:..year commitment. (Id.) No applicant was asked to make the installation

27 ,~) permanent to the property or alter their utility bills in any way. (Ex. E, F, and G.)28'

5

_1288489 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16'

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25--26'"

11. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that nowhere in

Respondent's Turf Program materials, application, fact sheet, or web site did

Respondent indicate that the applicant's name and address would be released to

the public. Respondent did not give any notice or obtain consent from any

applicant that in exchange for this go,:,ernment-funded money, the applicants

agreeing to waive their right to privacy.

12. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on or a~oundMay 19,

2015, MWD received a CPRA request regarding its Turf Program from Morgan Cook, a

reporter for Requestor (Ex. H.) Requestor asked for electronic records regardin'g the

Turf Program, including at least fifteen data fields such as the name of the recipient;

date of award; street address of recipient; city of recipient;, zip code of recipient; county

of recipient; name of contact person/applicant; type of recipient (bus'iness, single-family

residential, etc.); description of recipient; amount of award; and description of turf

removal project approved for incentive (square footage to be removed, etc.). (Id.)

13. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Respondent did not

provide any notice to Turf Program applicants that their information would be disclosed

to a third party, or that their information'would be disclosed to a newspaper for potential

publication pursuant to a CPRA request. (; Ex. E, F, and

G.) Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Respondent did not

provide any notice to Turf Program rebate recipients that as a result ofparticipation in

27( , the Turf Program, Petitioner's customer's confidential information would be disclosed28'

j. :

6

i..' ! 288489 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

". 1

2

3

4

5

67

8

910

11

12

13

14

151617

18

19

20

21

22

23

24. (.:.:

25,. i~. !

26'(..=.)

27;:)28 '..

l~..::

to a third party, or that their information would be disclosed to a newspaper for potential

publication pursuant to a CPRA request. (Id.)

14. Petitioner inadvertently became aware of this CPRA request on or about June 2, 2015.

(Decl. of David Wright, p. 4.) Respondent informed Petitioner of the request. (Id.)

Petitioner determined that the names and addresses of its customers are confidential in

combination with rebate amounts, and did not disclose its customer names and address

in response to a separate and different CPRA request. (Id.)

15. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on or around June 29,

2015, MWD provided approximately sixteen data fields to Requestor. (Ex. I.) Petitioner

is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that MWD redacted all of the data with

the names of the applicant (as opposed to recipient of the rebate). (Id.) Petitioner is

informed and believes, and thereon alleges that MWD disclosed street addresses at the

general city block number level. (Id.) Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon

alleges, that MWD also redacted the names of recipients (as opposed to applicant) from

the responsive records, except for where a third-party contractor, such as Turf. ,

Terminators, was paid directly. (Id.) Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon

alleges, that the names of third-party contractors and their full contact information was

disclosed. (Id.)

16. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on or about July 7, 2015,

Requestor responded that the records provided on or about June 29,2015 were

insufficient. (Ex. J.) Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that

7

I 288489 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Requestor reiterated its request for installation street addresses numbers; first and last ,.

names of all applicants; and first and last names of all recipients of the award. (Id.)

17. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on or around July 14, 2015,

Petitioner met with Respondent and objected to the disclosure of its customer's name

and address, and cited various federal and state laws to support its claim of customer

privacy. (Decl. of David Wright, p. 4.) MWD disagreed with LADWP's understanding

of the law. (Id.)

18. On July 29, 2015, Respondent informed Petitioner that it intended to release all

responsive records on August 7, 2015. (Ex. K.)

19. The California Constitution gives each citizen an "inalienable right" to pursue and

obtain privacy in article I, 1: "All people are by nature free and independent and have

inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, .

17 possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and

18 privacy." (Cal. Const., art. 1, 1.)19

20

21

22

23

24

25, i. .,

-' )27

28 ".... )

20. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Respondent has an

obligation to comply with the California Constitution and protect all persons from

disclosure of information that would invade their privacy or compromise their personal

. safety. Respondent's intended disclosure of Petitioner's customer's names and

addresses violates these laws because Respondent did not provide any notice to

Petitioner's customers regarding the potential or intended disclosure of their information

at the time of application to the program. Petitioner's customers may never have

8

VI 288489 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25"

26"

participated in the Turf Program if they had known their names and addresses could be

published in a newspaper.

21. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Respon'dent also failed to

provide notice to Petitioner's customers after their applications were accepted to the

Turf Program. Respondent should have provided notice to all participants regarding

their determination that their program and rebate information is not protected from

disclosure, including details about how much rebate money they were given, how much

square footage was replaced, and which third-party contractor that they may have hired.

22. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Respondent also failed to

obtain consent from Petitioner's customers regarding the release of their information to

this specific CPRA request, or give them an opportunity to object to the release of their

information.

23. Furthermore, Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Respondent

failed to provide Petitioner any advance notice that Petitioner's customers' information

would be disclosed. Petitioners encouraged Petitioner's customers to participate in both

turf replacement programs offered by Respondent and Petitioner. Petitioner basically

had a contractual relationship with Respondent in regards to the execution of the Turf

Program. Petitioner is obliged to maintain the confidentiality of its customers'

information and Respondent owes Petitioner's Customers the same duty in this instance.

24. Allowing Respondent's disclosure of this information would deny Petitioner and

27(, Petitioner's customers the opportunity to object to this release or obtain a judicial28 '

IJ "

(:)determination regarding their private interests in non-disclosure. The disclosure of this

9

I) 1288489 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

remain redacted.

possible great injury.

the names and addresses of Petitioner's customers.

these records. Notwithstanding such ability, and despite Petitioner's demand for

Respondent to withhold the records, Respondent continues to fail and refuse to redact

other than the relief sought in this petition, because pursuant to the CPRA, no other

objecting to Respondent and demanding that the names and addresses of its customers

information and may cause Petitioner's customers to suffer irreparable harm and

judicial, administrative, or contractual remedy is available to Petitioner. Furthermore,

26. At all times mentioned, Respondent has been able to exercise the discretion to withhold

27. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,

25. Petitioner has performed all conditions precedent to the filing of this petition by

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1617 release of the names and addresses would render any subsequent judicial,

18 administrative, or contractual remedy moot.19

20

21

22

23

24

v. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Gov. Code 6250, et seq.)28. Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates by this reference all of the allegations in

paragraphs 1 through 27 inclus~ve, of this Petition as if fully set forth herein..

29. The CPRA was enacted in 1968 to promote government accountability, but expressly

25'.,j26"

recognized that every individual's right to privacy: "In enacting this chapter, the

27.-"I.,.;)Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access

28",t, .:

to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and

," ,

i..... 10I- "

i" 288489 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24(,-.25--,

26-'-(I..

27(,28-,

i. I! ~'

(: i

~_.

necessary right of every person in this state." (Gov. Code 6250.) Therefore, the CPRA,

may permit access to by any member of the public to public records created by public

employees, but it does not allow for the public to access records pertaining to private

individuals.

30. Petitioner is informed and believes, a~d thereon alleges, that Respondent intends to

disclose the names'and addresses ofprivate individuals. (Ex. K.) Requestor is not

seeking records that relate to MWD's conduct as a government agency in creating,

operating, or granting funds under the Turf Program. These are not public records

because the names and addresses of private customers to a public utility have nothing to

do with the conduct of the people's business.

31. On July 18, 1989, actress Rebecca Schaeffer was murdered in front of her West,

Hollywood apartment by a man who had been stalking her for three years, as reported

by the Los Angeles Times in over seventeen published articles. (Ex. L.) After

unsuccessfully wandering around Ms. Schaeffer's neighborhood in an effort to locate

her, the murderer obtained her home address by paying $250 to a detective agency in

Tucson. (ld.) The murderer represented himself as an old friend that wanted to get back

in touch with her. (Id.) The detective agent simply went to the California Department of

Motor Vehicles, filled out a form, paid approximately $1, and was given Ms.

Schaeffer's home address. (ld.; Ex. M; Senator Sher, Sen. Judiciary Committee,

analysis of Assem. Bill No. 448 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.) p. 4.)

32. The Request does not fit any of the exceptions in Government Code 6254.16, which

states as follows (please note, "or" does not mean "and"):11

!, ,f! 288489 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR'WRIT OF MANDATE FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require the disclosure of the name~credit history~ utility usage data~ home address~ or telephone number of utilitycustomers of local agencies~ except that disclosure of name~ utility usage data~and the home address of utility customers of local agencies shall be madeavailable upon request as follows:(a) To an agent or authorized family member of the person to whom theinformation pertains.(b) To an officer or employee of another governmental agency when necessaryfor the performance of its official duties.(c) Upon court order or the request of a law enforcement agency relative to anongoing investigation.(d) Upon determination by the local agency that the utility customer who is thesubject of the request has used utility services in a manner inconsistent withapplicable local utility usage policies.(e) Upon determination by the local agency that the utility customer who is thesubject of the request is an elected or appointed official with authority todetermine the utility usage policies of the local agency~ provided that the home,address of an appointed official shall not be disclosed without his or her consent.(t) Upon determination by the local agency that the public interest in disclosureof the information clearly outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure."(Emphasis added.) (Gov. Code 6254.16.)

33. Petitioner is informed and believes~ a.nd thereon alleges~ that Respondent has an

obligation to comply with the CPRA by withholding the names and address of

, Petitioner~s customers. Respondent has an obligation to comply with Government Code

'6254.16 and protect municipal utility customers from disclosure of information that

would invade their privacy or compromise their personal safety.

34. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Respondent~s intended

disclosure of Petitioner's customers' names and address on August 7,2015 violates

Government Code 6254.16.

26" 35. The CPRA expressly exempts residence addresses from disclosure in numerous

27--"-- instances, as follows:

28'j',- II

12

iJ 288489 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

2

3

4

5

6

78'

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24()

25" i26",

C,~:27, -

i,...

28',I' _

(:

1. Gov. Code 6253(f) for arrestees and vict~ms of crime;2. Gov. Code 6254(u) for prosecutors, public defenders, peace officers, judges, court

commissioners, and magistrates;3. Gov. Code 6254.1 for Department of Housing and Community Development and

Department of Motor Vehicles;. 4. Gov. Code 6254.21 for elected or appointed officials and their spouses and

children on the Internet, which includes state constitutional officers, members of theLegislature, judges and court commissioners, district attorneys, public defenders,members of a city council, members of a board of supervisors, appointees of theGovernor, appointees of the Legislature, mayors, city attorneys, police chiefs andsheriffs, a public safety official, as defined in

5. Gov. Code 6254.24, state administrative law judges, federal judges and federaldefenders, and members of the United States Congress and appointees of thePresident;

6. Gov. Code 6254.3 for state employees and employees of a school district or countyoffice of education; and

7. Gov. Code 6254.4 for voter registration information.

36. Petitioner is entitled to mandamus and to file this "Reverse CPRA" action pursuant to

Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1250, in

order to compel Respondent to comply with the CPRA and protect the confidentiality of

Petitioner's customers' names and addresses.

37. Petitioner seeks a declaration from this court pursuant to Government Code 6258 that

it is unlawful for Respondent to disclose the name and address of Petitioner's customers

to Requestor.

38. Petitioner has performed all conditions precedent to the filing of this petition by

objecting to Respondent and demanding that the names and addresses of its customers

remain redacted.

39. At all times mentioned, Respondent has been able to exercise the discretion to withhold

, these records. Notwithstanding such"ability, and despite Petitioner's demand for

13

! r 288489 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.',

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Respondent to withhold the records, Respondent continues to fail and refuse to redact

the names and addresses of Petitioner's customers.

40. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,

other than the relief sought in this petition, because pursuant to the CPRA, no other

judicial, administrative, or contractual remedy is available to Petitioner: Furthermore,

release of the names and addresses would render any subsequent judicial,

administrative, or contractual remedy moot.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Petitioner's customers' names and addresses.

1. That the court issue a preemptory writ in the first instance commanding respondent to

comply with the California Constitution and the CPRA and protect the confidentiality of

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays:12

13

14

15

1617 2. That the court, alternatively, first issue an alternative writ commanding respondent to

18 comply with the California Constitution and the CPRA and protect the confidentiality of19

20

21

22

23

24

25.. :

26' II

27;:1 Ii28"

r') II

Petitioner's customers' names and addresses; or, in the alternative, show cause why it

should not do so, and thereafter issue a peremptory writ commanding respondent to

comply with the California Constitution and the CPRA and protect the confidentiality of

Petitioner's customers' names and addresses.

3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

14

I) 1 288489 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

2 DATED: July 3,0,20153

4

5

67

8

910

11

12

13

14

15

1617

18

1920

21

22

23

24c::

25.. ,

26'!.....~.

27( .28'

\' -......

MICHAEL N. FEUER, City AttorneyRICHARD M. BROWN, General Counsel,

Water and PowerRICHARD TOM, Assistant General CounselJULIE RILEY, Deputy City Attorney

d ' jJ.,B: I~---TINA SHIMDeputy City Attorney

Attorney for Petitioner, CITY OF LOSANGELES acting by and through the LOSANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATERAND POWER

15

iJ! 288489 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

I, the undersigned, say: I am the Interim Chief Administrative Officer of Plaintiff CITY OF

1

2

34 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

5

6 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

7

8

)))ss.)))

VERIFICATION

9LOS ANGELES for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power in the above entitled action; I

10

11 have read the foregoing VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

12 FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF and know the contents thereof; and that the

13 same is true of my own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated upon my14

information or belief, and as to those matters that I believe them to be true.15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24l._ .'

25'

26:'.~ .~

27:-

2K!'

!. .fi 288383

I, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

. Executed on July 29,2015 at Los Angeles, California.

1

VERIFICATION OF DAVID WRIGHT

DQ~INAL~TIORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATIORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY

Michael N. Feuer, City AttorneyRichard M. Brown, General Counsel, Water and PowerTINA SHIM, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 233910)III N. Hope'Street, Rrn 340, Los Angeles, CA 90012 FILED

TELEPHONE NO.: 213 367-2372 FAX NO. 213 367-4588 superior Court Of CallfornlllATIORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff City of Los Ai:lgeles COlmty Of Los Aneeles

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Los AngelesJUL 30 1015STREET ADDRESS: 111 N. Hill Street

MAILING ADDRESS:

CITY AND ZIP CODE: Los An151es, CA 90012 Shem K.~" vull:erlClerkBRANCH N."~ Central istrictCASE NAME: Cit)' of Los Angeles, acting by and through the LOs

By' t 'DeputyAngeles Department of Water and Power v. Metropolitan

- -....

- ,.Water District of Southern CaliforniaCASE NUMBER: fJ ~ ~ D{ 'U 0 9CIVil CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case uesignation

D Unlimited [2Sl Limited D D:(Amount ~ (Amount Counter JomderJUDGE:demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant

exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules' of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT:Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).

1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:Auto Tort Contracto Auto (22) D Breach of contract/warranty (06)o Uninsured motorist (46) D Rule 3.740 collections (09)Other PIIPDIWD (Personal Injury/Property D Other collections (09)DamagelWrongful Death) Tort D Insurance coverage (18)D Asbestos (04) D Other contract (37)o Product liability (24) Real Propertyo Medical malpractice (45) D Eminent domain/Inverseo Other PIIPDIWD (23) condemnation (14)Non.PI/PDIWD (Other) Tort D Wrongful eviction (33)o Business tort/unfair business practice (07) D Other real property (26)o Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainero Defamation (13) D Commercial (31)o Fraud (16) D Residential (32)o Intellectual property (19) D Drugs (38)o Professional negligence (25) Judicial Reviewo Other non-PIIPDIWD tort (35) 0 Asset forfeiture (05)Employment D Petition re: arbitration award (11)o Wrongful tennination (36) ~ Writ of mandate (02)o Other employment (15) D Other judicial review' (39)

Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation(Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)D AntitrustlTrade regulation (03)D Construction defect (10)D Mass tort (40)D Securities litigation (28)o EnvironmentalfToxic tort (30)D Insurance coverage claims arising from the

above listed provisionally complex casetypes (41)

Enforcement of JudgmentD Enforcement of judgment (20)Miscellaneous Civil ComplaintD RICO(27)D Other complaint (not specified above) (42)Miscellaneous Civil PetitionD Partnership and corporate governance (21)D Other petition (not specified'above) (43)

2. This case D is IZl is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark thefactors requiring exceptional jUdicial management:a. 0 Large number of separately represented parties d. D Large number of witnessesb. 0 EX1ensive motion practice raising difficult o~ novel e. D Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts

issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal courtc. 0 Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. D Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision

3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a.O monetary b.~ nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. Dpunitive4. Number of causes of action (specify):5. This case D is 1Zl is not a class action suit.'6. (!~ there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case.Date! July 30, 2015'TINA SHIM

(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)i).' NOTICE

..Elaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed(.under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may resultjn sanctions.

- File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. .-ilf;this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all

.Qther parties to the action or proceeding. '.Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onlv,

. I"ae1012Forni Adopted for Mandatory Use

Judicial Council of CaliforniaCMi010 [Rev. JUly 1, 2007]

CIVil CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.400-3.403, 3.740;Cal Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10www.coultinfo.ca.gov

SHORT TITLE: f Souther.n Cal, forn .CaASE N~MBERLADWP v. Metropolitan Water District Q

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM ANDSTATEMENT OF LOCATION

(CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION)This form is required pursuant to Local Rule 2.3 in all new civil case filings in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Item I. Check the types of hearing and fill in the estimated length of hearing expected for this case:

JURY TRIAL? YES CLASS ACTION? YES LIMITED CASE? YES TIME ESTIMATED FOR TRIAL ..:.H:.:=O""U""R""S:....'...::D:.:..A,-,-Y.:::S

Item II. Indicate the correct district and courthouse location (4 steps -If you checked "Limited Case", skip to Item III, Pg. 4):

Step 1: After first completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet form, find the main Civil Case Cover Sheet heading for yourcase in the left margin below, and, to the right in Column A, the Civil Case Cover Sheet case type you selected.

Step 2: Check smt Superior Court type of action in Column B below which best describes the nature of this case.

Step 3: In Column C, circle the reason for the court location choice that applies to the type of action you havechecked. For any exception to the court location, see Local Rule 2.3. .

Applicable Reasons for Choosing Courthouse Location (see Column C below)1. Class actions must be filed in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, central district.2. May be filed in central (other county, or no bodily injury/property damage).3. Location where cause of action arose.4. Location where bodily injury, death or damage occurred.5. Location where performance required or defendant resides.

6. Location of property or permanently garaged vehicle.7. Location where petitioner resides.8. Location wherein defendanVrespondent functions wholly.9. Location where one or more of the parties reside.

10. Location of Labor Commissioner Office .11. Mandatory Filing Location (Hub Case)

Step 4: Fill in the information requested on page 4 in Item III; complete Item IV. Sign the declaration.

Auto (22) o A7100 Motor Vehicle - Personallnjury/Property DamagelWrongful Death 1.,2.,4.

Uninsured Motorist (46) o A7110 Personallnjury/Property DamagelWrongful Death - Uninsured Motorist 1., 2., 4.

Asbestos (04)

Product Liability (24)

Medical Malpractice (45)

Other PersonalInjury Property

Damage WrongfulDeath (23)

o A6070 Asbestos Property Damage

o A7221 Asbestos - PersonallnjurylWrongful Death

o A7260 Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental)

o A7210 Medical Malpractice - Physicia-ns & Surgeons \o A7240 Other Professional Health Care Malp'ractice

o A7250 ~remises Liability (e.g., slip and fall)o A7230 Intentional Bodily Injury/Property DamagelWrongful Death (e.g., ~

assault, vandalism, etc.)o A7270 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

o A7220 Other Personallnjury/Property DamagelWrongful Death

2.

2.

1.,2.,3.,4.,8.

1.,4.

1.,4.

1.,4.

1.,4.

1.,3.

1.,4.

L;ACIV 109 (Rev 3/15)l()rC Approved 03-04

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUMAND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

Local Rule 2.3Page 1 of4

ISHORT TITLE: .~ CASE NUMBERLADWP v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern Califor iaA "' B.. C Applicable

Civil Case Cover Sheet."'i"'"

;.t,- ,~- ., Type of Action~r;' .Reasons - See Step 3

Category No. (Check only.one) Above

Business Tort (07) 0 A6029 Other CommerciaUBusiness Tort (not fraud/breach of contract) 1.,3.

~1S Civil Rights (08) 0 A6005 Civil Rights/Discrimination 1.,2.,3.CDt-c.~~-a.. m Defamation (13) 0 A6010 Defamation (slander/libel) 1.,2.,3.-0~-::I ::I._-.ED) Fraud (16) 0 A6013 Fraud (no contract) 1.,2.,3.eCi ~53: 0 A6017 Legal Malpractice 1.,.2.,3.I!!-CD CD Professional Negligence (25)a..g' 0 A6050 Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) 1.,2.,3.c Eo ."zo

Other (35) 0 A6025 Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort 2.,3.

-Wrongful Termination (36) 0 A6037 Wrongful Termination 1.,2.,3.e

CDE>- 0 A6024 Other Employment Complaint Case 1.,2.,3.0'ii. Other Employment (15)E 0 A6109 Labor Commissioner Appeals 10.w

0 A6004 Breach of RentaULease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful 2.,5.eviction)

Breach of Contractl Warranty0 A6008 ContractlWarranty Breach -Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence) 2.,5.(06)

(not insurance) 0 A6019 Negligent Breach of ContractlWarranty (no fraud) 1.,2.,5.

0 A6028 Other Breach of ContractlWarranty (not fraud or negligence) 1.,2.,5.

- 0 A6002 Collections Case-Seller Plaintiff 2.,5.,6,11uE Collections (09)- 0 Other Promissory Note/Collections Casee A6012 2.,5, 1100 0 A6034 Collections Case-Purchased Debt (Charged Off Consumer Debt 5,6,11

Purchased on or after Januarv 1 2014\

Insurance Coverage (18) 0 A6015 Insurance Coverage (not complex) 1.,2.,5.,8.

0 A6009 Contractual Fraud 1.,2.,3.,5.Other Contract (37) 0 A6031 Tortious Interference 1.,2.,3.,5.

0 A6027 Other Contract Dispute(not breachlinsurance/fraud/negligence) 1.,2.,3.,8.

Eminent Domain/Inverse 0 A7300 Eminent Domain/Condemnation Number of parcels___ 2.~ Condemnation (14)CDc.~ Wrongful Eviction (33) 0 A6023 Wrongful Eviction Case 2.,6.a..iii

CD 0 A6018 Mortgage Foreclosure 2.,6.0:::Other Real Property (26) 0 A6032 Quiet Title 2.,6.

(:::) 0 A6060 Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) 2.,6.':;l Unlawful Detainer-Commercial 0 A6021 Unlawful Detainer-Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction) 2.,6.e (31)'iiia;e) Unlawful Detainer-Residential 0 A6020 Unlawful Detainer-Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction) 2.,6.::I 132\3 Unlawful Detainer-!as-.l 0 A6020F Unlawful Detainer-Post-Foreclosure 2.,6.e Post-Foreclosure 134\:::;).

!"M) Unlawful Detainer-Drugs (38) 0 A6022 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs 2.,6.

LAGP.1 109 (Rev 3/15)LA~g-f'pproved 03-04

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUMAND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

Local Rule 2.3Page 2 of 4

ISHORT TITLE: .J CASE NUMBER

LADWP v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cal; forll; a

AntitrustlTrade Regulation (03) 0 A6003 AntitrustlTrade Regulationco~CJ);::::;

=Ii.Eoo

~"iiico

"iii";;eQ.

Asset Forfeiture (05)

Petition re Arbitration (11)

Writ of Mandate (02)

Other Judicial Review (39)

Construction Defect (10)

Claims Involving Mass Tort(40)

Securities litigation (28)

Toxic TortEnvironmental (30)

Insurance Coverage Claimsfrom Complex Case (41)

Enforcementof Judgment (20)

RICO (27)

Other Complaints(Not Specified Above) (42)

Partnership CorporationGovernance (21)

I

Other Petitions (NotSpecified Above) (43)

o A6108 Asset Forfeiture Case

o A6115 Petition to C'ompeVConfinnNacate Arbitration

o A6151 Writ - Administrative Mandamuso A6152 Writ - Mandamus on limited Court Case MatterJilf.. A6153 Writ - Other limited Court Case Review

o A6150 OtherWritlJudicial Review

o A6007 Construction Defect

o A6006 Claims Involving Mass Tort

o A6035 Securities litigation Case

o A6036 Toxic TortlEnvironmental

o A6014 Insurance Coverage/Subrogation (complex case only)

o A6141 Sister State Judgment

o A6160 Abstract of Judgment

o A6107 Confession of Judgment (non-domestic relations)o A6140 Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes)o A6114 Petition/Certificate for Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Tax

o A6112 Other Enforcement of Judgment Case

o A6033 Racketeering (RICO) Case

o A6030 Declaratory Relief Only

o A6040 Injunctive Relief Only (not domestic/harassment)o A6011 Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tortlnon-complex)o A6000 Other Civil Complaint (non-tortlnon-complex)

o A6113 Partnership and Corporate Governance Case

o A6121 Civil Harassment

o A6123 Workplace Harassment

o A6124 Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Case

o A6190 Election Contesto A6110 Petition for Change of Name

o A6170 Petition for Relief from Late Claim Law

o A6100 Other Civil Petition

2.,6.

2.,5.

2.,8.

2.

2.

2.,8.

1.,2.,8.

1.,2.,3.

1.,2.,8.

1.,2.,8.

1.,2.,3.,8.

1.,2.,5.,8.

2.,9.

2.,6.

2.,9.

2.,8.

2.,8.

2.,8.,9.

1.,2.,8.

1.,2.,8.

2.,8.

1.,2.,8.

1.,2.,8.

2.,8.

2:,3.,9.

2.,3.,9.

2.,3.,9.

2.

2.,7.

2.,3.,4.,8.

2.,9.

LAq1Y.109 (Rev 3/15)LASC...f-pproved 03-04

1,_,_ I

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUMAND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

Local Rule 2.3Page 3 of4 (

J ,

SHORT TITLE: ' CASE NUMBERLADWP v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cal ifor 1a

Item III. Statement of Location: Enter the address of the accident, party's residence or place of business, performance, or othercircumstance indicated in Item II., Step 3. on Page 1, as the proper reason for filing in the court location you selected.

ADDRESS:REASON: Check the appropriate boxes for the numbers shown

Metropolitanunder Column C for the type of action that you have selected for Water District of Southern Calthis case. 700 N. Alameda Street

p1. 0 2. 0 3. 04.05.06.07. 08.0 9.010.011. Los 'Ange1es , CA 90012CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE:

Item IV. Declaration ofAssignment: I declare under penalty of pe~ury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is trueand correct and that the above-entitled matter is properly filed for assignment to the Stanley Mask courthouse in theCentral District of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles [Code Civ. Proc., 392 et seq., and LocalRule 2.3, subd.(a).

Dated: July 30, 2015

PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLYCOMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE:

1. Original Complaint or Petition.

2. If filing a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk.

3. Civil Case Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form CM-01 O.

4. Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV 109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev.03/15).

5. Payment in full of the filing fee, unless fees have been waived.

6. A signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, Judicial Council form CIV-01 0, if the plaintiff or petitioner is aminor under 18 years of age will be required by Court in order to issue a summons.

7. Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendummust be served along with the summons and complaint, or other initiating pleading in the case.

(::)

forni a

LAf:H/109 (Rev 3/15)LA~R Approved 03-04

',_.' I

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUMAND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

Local Rule 2.3Page 4 of4