g sacv12 00280 jamesvus complaint
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
1/29
MATTHEW S. PAPPAS (SBN: 171860)2 CHARLES M. FARANO (SBN: 86915)DAVID R. WELCH (SBN: 251693)22641 Lake Forest Drive, #B5-107 "Lake Forest, CA 92630 , r . , -- " Phone: (949) 382-1485 :,. -4 -I.'"Facsimile: (949) 242-2605 ,- .E-Mail : [email protected] -5 : - . ~ r ;",Neo- .6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs , . '> ., . - ~ 7 " -: -. ,'"'"89
10
UNlTED STATES DISTRICT COURT I wCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1112 MARLA JAMES; KATHERINEALDRICH; and VlCTORIA PAPPAS,
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
2/29
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
27
28
VE RIFIE D COMPL AINT
2
LAWO
F
FICEOFMATTHEWP
APPAS
22641LAKEFORESTDR.,
#B5-107
LAKEF
OREST,
CA
92630(949)382-1485
PARTIES
2. Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (United States) is a
sovereign government established and operating under the United States Constitution.
3. Defendant ERIC HOLDER (HOLDER) is the Attorney General of
Defendant UNITED STATES.
4. Defendants CITY OF COSTA MESA (COSTA MESA) and CITY OF
LAKE FOREST (LAKE FOREST) are municipal entities incorporated under and
operating pursuant to the California state constitution.
5. Plaintiffs MARLA JAMES and VICTORIA PAPPAS (PAPPAS) are
residents of Orange County, California. Plaintiff KATHERINE ALDRICH
(ALDRICH) is a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
6. Plaintiffs JAMES and PAPPAS are individuals who suffer from severe
disability or permanent injury. Both are patients with recommendations for medica
cannabis from licensed California doctors. Plaintiffs JAMES, PAPPAS, and ALDRICH
are each at least or over the age of eighteen (18) and registered California voters.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
7. On June 21, 1788, the United States Constitution was ratified.
8. Article 1 of the United States Constitution established a geographica
district for the government of the United States (the District of Columbia) and provided
that Congress shall exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever in the
District. (U.S. Constitution, art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 17.)
9. On September 9, 1850, as part of the Compromise of 1850, the State of
California was admitted to the United States undivided as a free state.
10. In 1907, California enacted the Poison Act (Stats. 1913, Ch. 342) which
criminalized the possession of marijuana under state law.
11. On October 27, 1970, Congress enacted the federal Controlled Substances
Act(CSA) as Title 2 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
3/29
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
27
28
VE RIFIE D COMPL AINT
3
LAWO
F
FICEOFMATTHEWP
APPAS
22641LAKEFORESTDR.,
#B5-107
LAKEF
OREST,
CA
92630(949)382-1485
1970 (CDAPC), P.L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236 (Oct. 27, 1970). The CSA is codified at
21 U.S.C. 801, et. seq.
12. The CSA lists controlled substances in five (5) schedules. The CSA
prohibits possession, transportation, manufacture, distribution, and storage of controlled
substances listed on Schedule 1. 21 U.S.C. 812(b). Furthermore, substances listed on
Schedule 1 may not be prescribed by a physician. (21 U.S.C. 812(b).)
13. Marijuana is listed on Schedule 1 of the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 812(c)(c)(10)
Tetrahydrocannabinols, a component of marijuana, is also listed on Schedule 1 of the
CSA. (21 U.S.C. 812(c)(c)(17).)
14. On December 24, 1973, Congress enacted the District of ColumbiaHome
Rule Act. P.L. 93-198; 87 Stat. 777; D.C. Code 1-201, et. seq. (Dec. 24, 1973
Amended Oct. 21, 1998.) In theHome Rule Act, Congress retains full plenary authority
over the District. (DC ST 1-206, Sec. 601.)
15. On November 5, 1996, pursuant to article 2 of their state constitution
California voters enacted Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act (CUA)
providing for marijuana possession, personal cultivation, and use for seriously ill
Californians possessing a recommendation for medical cannabis made by a licensed
doctor. (Ca. Health and Safety Code 11362.5.)
16. On November 3, 1998, citizens in the federal District of Columbia voted to
approve D.C. Act 13-138, the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatmentballot
initiative. (D.C. Initiative 59; Nov. 1998). Congress did not authorize the D.C. citizens
vote on Initiative 59.
17. On October 21, 1998, Congress enacted P.L. 105-277 (Stat. 2681-150), a
consolidated appropriations law, providing, at Sec. 171 (Section 171), [N]one of the
funds contained in this Act may be used to conduct any ballot initiative which seeks to
legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution
of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) or any
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
4/29
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
5/29
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
27
28
VE RIFIE D COMPL AINT
5
LAWO
F
FICEOFMATTHEWP
APPAS
22641LAKEFORESTDR.,
#B5-107
LAKEF
OREST,
CA
92630(949)382-1485
District of Columbia local government to both houses of Congress pursuant to the
District of ColumbiaHome Rule Act. (D.C. Act 13-138; Nov., 1998).
25. D.C. Act 13-138 became D.C. Law 13-315 on February 25, 2010, and is
published at 57 DCR 3360.
26. In May, 2010, D.C. Law 18-210, theLegalization of Marijuana for Medica
Treatment Amendment Act, included proposed amendments to D.C. Law 13-315 and was
approved unanimously by the District of Columbia City Council. On May 21, 2010, the
Mayor of the District of Columbia signed the law which was then assigned D.C. Act No.
18-429. Thereafter, D.C. Act No 18-429 was transmitted to both houses of Congress and
became effective July 27, 2010. (Feb. 25, 2010, D.C. Law 13-315, 2, as added July 27
2010, D.C. Law 18-210, 2, 57 DCR 4798.) After passage, the District law was codified
at DC ST 7-1671, et. seq.
27. On December 2, 2011, the District of Columbia promulgated fina
rulemaking for DC ST 7-1671 and the laws implementing regulations. (See D.C. Reg.
22-C1 through 22-C200, Notice of Final Rulemaking published at 58 DCR 10128
10137.)
28. Plaintiff Marla James suffers from, among other ailments, necrotizing
fasciitis removal, diabetes, and blindness. Plaintiff JAMES is wheelchair bound. Opiate-
based drugs cause her to suffer debilitating side effects. Accordingly, her licensed doctor
recommended medical cannabis for her.
29. Plaintiff JAMES is a patient member of medical cannabis patien
collectives in the City of Costa Mesa, California. The collectives that Plaintiff JAMES is
a member of operate in full conformance with California law and regulations including,
but not limited to, the CUA and MMPA. Furthermore, the collectives Plaintiff JAMES is
a member of consist of groups of seriously ill, disabled, and injured patients who are
mutual beneficiaries of and participants in the collective operation.
30. In April, 2010, Plaintiff JAMES, along with three other disabled
individuals, filed suit in U.S. District Court against Defendant cities COSTA MESA and
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
6/29
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
27
28
VE RIFIE D COMPL AINT
6
LAWO
F
FICEOFMATTHEWP
APPAS
22641LAKEFORESTDR.,
#B5-107
LAKEF
OREST,
CA
92630(949)382-1485
LAKE FOREST seeking relief under Title 2 of 42 U.S.C. 12101, the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). (James, et. al. v. City of Costa Mesa, et al., (2010) No
SACV10-00402 AG (MLGx).) In their complaint, the disabled Plaintiffs alleged that the
complete ban of and related actions to eliminate medical marijuana collectives by the
Defendant cities impermissibly violated applicable provisions of theADA.
31. After filing suit, the disabled Plaintiffs sought an order from the District
Court enjoining the Defendant cities from enforcing their respective bans of medical
marijuana collectives and from engaging in police or civil actions to force closure of
patient collectives.
32. In May, 2010, the District Court denied the preliminary injunction
requested by the disabled Plaintiffs. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs appealed the denial of the
injunction to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Marla James, et al. v. City of
Costa Mesa, et al., (2010) No. 10-55769.)
33. On January 18, 2012, the United States Attorney for the Central District of
California issued letters to patient collectives in Costa Mesa, California, including, but
not limited to, the patient collectives that Plaintiff JAMES is a member of. In the letters
the U.S. Attorney states that there is no medical marijuana under federal law, orders the
collectives to cease and desist, and provides that civil or criminal action will be taken if
the groups do not stop all marijuana activities.
34. After receiving the letters from the United States Attorney, the collectives
that Plaintiff JAMES is a member of in Costa Mesa stopped operating.
35. Plaintiff ALDRICH is registered to vote and lives in the city of Long
Beach, California. In March, 2010, the City Council of Long Beach passed an ordinance
permitting and regulating medical marijuana collectives.
36. In May, 2011, Plaintiff PAPPAS was critically injured in an assault while
visiting the State of Nevada. Plaintiff PAPPAS underwent emergency brain surgery
following the assault and was placed in a hospital critical care unit for several weeks
while in a coma.
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
7/29
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
27
28
VE RIFIE D COMPL AINT
7
LAWO
F
FICEOFMATTHEWP
APPAS
22641LAKEFORESTDR.,
#B5-107
LAKEF
OREST,
CA
92630(949)382-1485
37. In June, 2011, Plaintiff PAPPAS, while recovering from brain surgery and
the injuries she suffered as a result of being assaulted, used an opiate based pain
medication prescribed by her doctor. After a period of use of the opiate based
medication, Plaintiff PAPPAS suffered side-effects and discomfort related to the opiate
medicine. She also felt that she was becoming dependent on the opiate drug.
38. Instead of seeking a prescription refill of the opiate medication, Plaintiff
PAPPAS instead used medical cannabis recommended by her doctor and that she
obtained from medical marijuana patient collectives in Lake Forest, California and
subsequently obtained from collectives in Long Beach, California. Plaintiff PAPPAS
continues to periodically use medical cannabis as she recovers from the severe and life-
threatening injuries she suffered in May, 2011.
39. In or around October, 2011, the United States Attorney for the Centra
District of California issued letters to patient collectives in Lake Forest, California,
including, but not limited to, the patient collectives that Plaintiff PAPPAS obtained
medication through via her authorized caregiver. In the letters, the U.S. Attorney states
that there is no medical marijuana under federal law, orders the collectives to cease and
desist, and provides that civil or criminal action will be taken if the groups do not stop all
marijuana activities.
40. After receiving the letters from the United States Attorney, the collectives
that Plaintiff PAPPAS obtained her medication through in Lake Forest, California
stopped operating.
41. After losing access to the patient collectives in Lake Forest, California
Plaintiff PAPPAS became a member of medical marijuana patient collectives in the City
of Long Beach, California.
42. Plaintiff ALDRICH is a designated personal caregiver for Plaintiff
PAPPAS and has provided regular assistance in her recovery since the May, 2011 assault
Plaintiff ALDRICH participates in the collective process provided under California law
as part of her caregiver activities for Plaintiff PAPPAS.
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
8/29
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
27
28
VE RIFIE D COMPL AINT
8
LAWO
F
FICEOFMATTHEWP
APPAS
22641LAKEFORESTDR.,
#B5-107
LAKEF
OREST,
CA
92630(949)382-1485
43. On October 4, 2011, regulations permitting and governing the operation of
medical marijuana patient collectives in the city of Long Beach were deemed preempted
by federal law by a California appeals court.
44. On February 14, 2012, the Long Beach, California City Council, in
response to the appellate court decision striking parts of its medical marijuana permit law
enacted a total ban of all medical marijuana patient collectives in the city of Long Beach.
45. On February 16, 2012, the patient collective that plaintiff PAPPAS is a
member of received a cease and desist letter from the City of Long Beach. Loss of
medication access by PAPPAS and through her authorized personal caregiver ALDRICH
is now directly threatened by the closure of all collectives in Long Beach, California.
46. Plaintiff JAMES is informed and believes, and based upon such
information and belief alleges, that in or around November, 2011, the Mayor of
Defendant COSTA MESA contacted representatives of Defendant UNITED STATES
and asked the UNITED STATES to send letters to the patient collectives in that city
ordering the collectives to shut-down.
47. Plaintiff PAPPAS is informed and believes, and based upon such
information and belief alleges, that in or around September, 2011, officials and
representatives of Defendant LAKE FOREST contacted representatives of Defendant
UNITED STATES and asked the UNITED STATES to send letters to patient collectives
in that city ordering the collectives to shut-down.
48. On January 26, 2012, the plaintiffs in James, et al. v. Costa Mesa, et al.
supra, filed an F.R.A.P. Rule 27-3 Emergency Motion in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals seeking to enjoin the UNITED STATES from threatening to close and then
closing, through civil or criminal action, patient collectives in the City of Costa Mesa
The Ninth Circuit denied the motion finding it did not have jurisdiction over the UNITED
STATES in that case. The Court further ordered that the plaintiffs could file a separate
action in U.S. District Court naming the UNITED STATES as a defendant.
//
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
9/29
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
10/29
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
27
28
VE RIFIE D COMPL AINT
10
LAWO
F
FICEOFMATTHEWP
APPAS
22641LAKEFORESTDR.,
#B5-107
LAKEF
OREST,
CA
92630(949)382-1485
SECOND CLAIM
(DEFENDANT UNITED STATES ONLY)
Equal Protection, Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution
(Fundamental Right to Vote)
53. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-48 of this Complaint.
54. When it enacted P.L. 111-117 in December, 2009, the UNITED STATES
allowed the citizens of the District to conduct and implement a referendum on
Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment.
55. The citizens of Washington D.C. included DC ST 7-1671.06(a) in the Act
which provides that medical marijuana dispensaries are authorized to provide medical
marijuana to qualified patients.
56. The citizens of Washington D.C. included DC ST 7-1671.06(b) in the Act
which provides that medical marijuana cultivation centers are authorized to grow medical
marijuana and distribute it to authorized Washington D.C. dispensaries.
57. Congress did not author the Legalization of Marijuana for Medica
Treatment act voted on and approved by Washington D.C. voters. Rather, it gave the
voters of Washington D.C. the right to conduct a referendum (vote) and thereafter
implement the District authored law.
58. Congress has plenary power over the District of Columbia and is the federa
legislature. While it may take action that is different and distinct for the District of
Columbia, its actions are always constrained by and subject to the requirements of the
United States Constitution. The right to vote is fundamental and subject to strict scrutiny
analysis for purposes of equal protection.
59. California voters approved medical marijuana use, possession, and personal
cultivation in 1996. The California Legislature approved medical marijuana cultivation
distribution, transportation, and storage in 2003.
60. On January 18, 2012, the UNITED STATES sent letters to the collectives
that Plaintiff James is a member of in the City of Costa Mesa providing that all marijuana
is illegal under federal law and stating specifically that, United States law takes
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
11/29
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
12/29
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
27
28
VE RIFIE D COMPL AINT
12
LAWO
F
FICEOFMATTHEWP
APPAS
22641LAKEFORESTDR.,
#B5-107
LAKEF
OREST,
CA
92630(949)382-1485
disenfranchise Washington D.C. voters. Hence, Californians are not equally protected
under the law and insofar as those federal provisions operate unequally, they are
unenforceable and constitutionally invalid. Moreover, the operation of federal law that is
not applicable in Washington D.C. has operated to invalidate and take away all effect of
the vote of ALDRICH and her elected city government representatives in the City of
Long Beach by preempting that citys law that sought to permit medical marijuana
collectives operating in full compliance with California law.
65. To the extent Washington D.C. citizens were granted the right to vote-on
and approve medical marijuana laws not subject to art. 6, cl. 2 preemption because the
federal District is not a state and because Congress removed its art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 17
prohibition, the medical marijuana laws Congress allowed the voters of Washington D.C
to vote-on and approve are defenses to general federal law, including the federal
Controlled Substances Actin the federal District. The claim by the UNITED STATES in
its January 18, 2012 letters providing state medical marijuana laws are not defenses to
federal law are improper because the voters of California must be equally protected under
the law. Likewise, the claims by federal authorities that there is no medical marijuana
under federal law are improper and without basis. Accordingly, in the same way voter
approved medical marijuana provisions in Washington D.C. operate to protect citizens in
the federal District, similar state laws operate as defenses for state citizens.
THIRD CLAIM
(DEFENDANT UNITED STATES ONLY)
Equal Protection, Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution
(Rational Basis)
66. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-48 and paragraphs 54-57 of this
Complaint.
67. Congress allowed the District of Columbia to conduct and implement and
referendum onLegalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment law as has been done
in several states.
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
13/29
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
27
28
VE RIFIE D COMPL AINT
13
LAWO
F
FICEOFMATTHEWP
APPAS
22641LAKEFORESTDR.,
#B5-107
LAKEF
OREST,
CA
92630(949)382-1485
68. The District of Columbia is not a state. Congress has plenary power over
the District. District laws are not subject to art. 6, cl. 2 Supremacy Clause preemption
because: 1) the District is not a state; and 2) its legislature is Congress, a branch of the
federal sovereign.
69. The federal Controlled Substances Act deems marijuana has no medical
value.
70. District citizens are protected from federal Controlled Substances Act
violations when in full compliance with DC ST 7-1671, et seq., the Districts medical
marijuana legalization law. Congress knowingly allowed the District to vote-on and
implement its medical marijuana law. It recognized medical marijuana and the medica
value of marijuana when it approved the Districts laws under P.L. 111-117 and then
through itsHome Rule Actpowers. On the other hand, California citizens, as evidenced
by the January 18, 2012 letters from the UNITED STATES, are not protected. Contrary
to Congresss position in Washington D.C. where there is medical marijuana, the
UNITED STATES January 18, 2012 letters provide that there is no medical marijuana
in the State of California under federal law.
71. There is no rational basis for deeming marijuana medically useful in the
District of Columbia and not medically useful in California. Additionally, Congress
made no such explicit determination.
72. There is no rational basis for determining that marijuana can have medica
value in Washington D.C. but not in California. Additionally, Congress made no such
explicit determination.
73. There is no rational basis for allowing the District of Columbia to conduct
and implement a referendum on legalization of medical marijuana in-part based on the
fact that several states had medical marijuana laws and then to withhold protection from
state voters under their laws.
74. There is no rational basis for the United States to protect District of
Columbia citizens under the CSA differently than it protects California citizens.
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
14/29
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
27
28
VE RIFIE D COMPL AINT
14
LAWO
F
FICEOFMATTHEWP
APPAS
22641LAKEFORESTDR.,
#B5-107
LAKEF
OREST,
CA
92630(949)382-1485
FOURTH CLAIM
(DEFENDANT UNITED STATES ONLY)
Equal Protection, Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution
(Rational Basis)
75. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-48 and paragraphs 54-57 of this
Complaint.
76. Unlike Washington D.C., the City of Long Beach is unable to include
medical marijuana authorization and permitting provisions in its City law because
citizens of Long Beach are treated differently under the law than citizens of Washington
D.C. Namely, while the District of Columbias laws are not subject to preemption by the
CSA, Long Beachs laws are.
77. Congress allowed the citizens of Washington D.C. to vote-on and
implement medical marijuana legalization, regulation, and permitting laws when it
enacted P.L. 111-117 in December, 2009. On the other hand, it has prevented Long
Beach from doing the same.
78. Medical marijuana patients in Washington D.C. are protected from CSA
liability through DC ST 7-1671, et seq., the Districts medical marijuana law. Long
Beach medical marijuana patients are not protected from CSA liability through either
California or Long Beach law.
79. Plaintiff PAPPAS has been adversely affected by the different and adverse
treatment of the patient collectives she is a member of in Long Beach because those
collectives have been ordered to shut-down based on federal preemption.
80. Plaintiff ALDRICH has been treated differently than voters in Washington
D.C. because her elected representatives are unable to vote on regulations, permits, and
controls on medical marijuana as a result of federal preemption.
81. There is no rational basis for the different and reduced protection provided
for ALDRICH and PAPPAS under the law.
//
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
15/29
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
27
28
VE RIFIE D COMPL AINT
15
LAWO
F
FICEOFMATTHEWP
APPAS
22641LAKEFORESTDR.,
#B5-107
LAKEF
OREST,
CA
92630(949)382-1485
FIFTH CLAIM
(DEFENDANTS COSTA MESA AND LAKE FOREST ONLY)
42 U.S.C. 1983 (Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution)
82. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-48 and paragraphs 54-57 of this
Complaint.
83. By requesting that Defendant UNITED STATES order shutdown of patient
collectives within their respective cities, Defendants COSTA MESA and LAKE
FOREST have acted to deprive Plaintiffs JAMES, WASHINGTON, DeJONG, and
PAPPAS of their constitutional right to equal protection under the law in contravention of
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
84. By requesting that Defendant UNITED STATES order shutdown of patientcollectives within their respective cities, Defendants COSTA MESA and LAKE
FOREST have acted to deprive Plaintiffs JAMES and PAPPAS of their constitutional
right to equal protection under the law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution.
85. By requesting that Defendant UNITED STATES order shutdown of patient
collectives within their respective cities, Defendants COSTA MESA and LAKE
FOREST have acted to deprive Plaintiffs JAMES and PAPPAS of their constitutional
right to due process in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
SIXTH CLAIM
(DEFENDANTS COSTA MESA AND LAKE FOREST ONLY)
42 U.S.C. 1983 (Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution)
86. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-48 and paragraphs 54-57 of this
Complaint.
87. By requesting that Defendant UNITED STATES order shutdown of patient
collectives within their respective cities, Defendants COSTA MESA and LAKE
FOREST have acted to deprive Plaintiffs JAMES and PAPPAS of their constitutional
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
16/29
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
27
28
VE RIFIE D COMPL AINT
16
LAWO
F
FICEOFMATTHEWP
APPAS
22641LAKEFORESTDR.,
#B5-107
LAKEF
OREST,
CA
92630(949)382-1485
right to equal protection under the law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution.
88. By requesting that Defendant UNITED STATES order shutdown of patient
collectives within their respective cities, Defendants COSTA MESA and LAKE
FOREST have acted to deprive Plaintiffs JAMES and PAPPAS of their constitutional
right to substantive due process under the law in contravention of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
89. By requesting that Defendant UNITED STATES order shutdown of patient
collectives within their respective cities, Defendants COSTA MESA and LAKE
FOREST have acted to deprive Plaintiffs JAMES and PAPPAS of their constitutional
right to procedural due process in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution.
SEVENTH CLAIM
(DEFENDANTS UNITED STATES AND COSTA MESA)
(42 U.S.C. 1983, Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process, as to Costa Mesa)
(Fifth Amendment, Due Process, as to United States)
90. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-48 and paragraphs 54-57 of this
Complaint.
91. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based upon such information and
belief allege that Defendants COSTA MESA and UNITED STATES acted in concert
with each other in sending the aforementioned closure and forfeiture letters to collectives
in Costa Mesa.
92. Under California law, patient collectives are non-profit entities consisting
of their individual patient members. Plaintiff JAMES is a member of Costa Mesa
collectives that received letters in Costa Mesa, California.
93. The aforementioned closure and forfeiture letters sent to collectives in
Costa Mesa that JAMES is a member of provided no basis for the collectives or its
respective patient members to be heard on, answer, address, or defend against criminal
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
17/29
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
27
28
VE RIFIE D COMPL AINT
17
LAWO
F
FICEOFMATTHEWP
APPAS
22641LAKEFORESTDR.,
#B5-107
LAKEF
OREST,
CA
92630(949)382-1485
civil, and property taking charges or demands for immediate closure included in the
letters. Accordingly, as to defendant UNITED STATES, the letters impermissibly violate
the procedural due process provisions of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
94. The aforementioned closure and forfeiture letters sent to collectives in
Costa Mesa that JAMES is a member of provided no basis for the collectives or their
respective patient members to be heard on, answer, address, or defend against the
UNITED STATES demand for immediate closure. The collectives, including their
respective patient members, including Plaintiff JAMES, have a property right and interest
in the improved real property locations of the patient collectives groups. Accordingly, as
to defendant UNITED STATES, the letters impermissibly violate the takings provisions
of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
95. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based upon such information and
belief allege that the aforementioned closure and forfeiture letters sent to collectives in
Costa Mesa were requested by Defendant COSTA MESA. The closure and forfeiture
letters sent to collectives in Costa Mesa that JAMES is a member of provided no basis for
the collectives or its respective patient members to be heard on, answer, address, or
defend criminal, civil, and property taking charges or demands for immediate closure
Accordingly, as to defendant COSTA MESA, the letters impermissibly violate the
procedural due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
EIGHTH CLAIM
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
96. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-95 of this Complaint.
97. As a direct result of the UNITED STATES actions as well as threatened
actions, plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm. The patient
collectives that disabled Plaintiffs JAMES and PAPPAS are members of in Lake Forest
and Costa Mesa have been closed. Both disabled Plaintiffs are severely restricted from or
unable to access medication through the collective process and are suffering. Both
Plaintiffs must now travel outside of the cities they live in to access medication. The
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
18/29
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
27
28
VE RIFIE D COMPL AINT
18
LAWO
F
FICEOFMATTHEWP
APPAS
22641LAKEFORESTDR.,
#B5-107
LAKEF
OREST,
CA
92630(949)382-1485
patient collectives that PAPPAS now travels to are approximately sixty miles round-trip
for her. Moreover, the patient collectives in Long Beach have now been ordered to close
because of a court decision finding that the permitting provisions of that citys law were
federally preempted.
98. Not only have and will plaintiffs suffer irreparable injury, Plaintiffs have no
plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law, thereby rendering declaratory relief and
preliminary and permanent injunctions appropriate. Money damages will not adequately
compensate Plaintiffs for the denial of their constitutional rights and civil liberties and if
defendants are not enjoined, a multiplicity of lawsuits will be required because Defendant
UNITED STATES unlawful conduct is continuous and ongoing and not only affects
Plaintiffs but other citizens similarly situated. Also, the denial of access to medication
has been deemed irreparable harm by federal courts. The denial of access to medication
and the resulting damage to the Plaintiffs cannot be adequately remedied through
pecuniary compensation.
99. The UNITED STATES has no rational basis for claiming it will be
adversely affected by any injunctive relief against it in this case because it has: 1)
allowed medical marijuana in Washington D.C.; 2) recognized medical marijuana; and
3) acknowledged state medical marijuana laws when allowing medical marijuana in the
District of Columbia.
100. The UNITED STATES has no basis for denying the Plaintiffs fundamenta
right to vote-on and enact medical marijuana legalization. The fundamental right to vote
was taken from Plaintiff ALDRICH when the City of Long Beachs medical marijuana
permitting and regulating law was deemed invalid because it was preempted by the
federal CSA in October, 2011 and thereafter repealed by that citys governing legislature
Unlike District of Columbia citizens, Plaintiffs ALDRICH, PAPPAS, and JAMES are
being denied the fundamental right to vote to legalize medical marijuana. Medica
marijuana legalization been proposed in California legislation and ballot initiatives
previously. However, like ALDRICH and other citizens in Long Beach who had their
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
19/29
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
27
28
VE RIFIE D COMPL AINT
19
LAWO
F
FICEOFMATTHEWP
APPAS
22641LAKEFORESTDR.,
#B5-107
LAKEF
OREST,
CA
92630(949)382-1485
medical marijuana law deemed federally preempted and then repealed because of
preemption, proposed state medical marijuana legalization proposals cannot be voted-on
or implemented by California or its cities because those laws have not, until now, been
able to survive federal preemption analysis. By giving the right to conduct and
implement their law on legalization of medical marijuana, Congress gave to voters in the
District of Columbia a right it has withheld from state voters. While Congress may create
different laws, regulations, and rights for the District of Columbia, it may not do so in
contravention of the U.S. Constitution and the fundamental rights guaranteed thereunder.
By denying Plaintiffs ALDRICH, PAPPAS, and JAMES equal protection of its laws in
respect to their fundamental right to vote, the UNITED STATES is violating the
Constitutions guarantees of substantive and procedural due process as well as equal
protection. The letters sent by the UNITED STATES to collectives in Costa Mesa and
Lake Forest make clear the UNITED STATES denial of equal protection under the law.
Such denial has caused and will continue to cause severe and irreparable harm to
ALDRICH, JAMES, and PAPPAS. It has and will cause severe and irreparable harm to
all California voters.
101. Given the allegations contained in this Complaint, Plaintiffs are likely to
prevail on the merits. Furthermore, the hardship to the UNITED STATES is minima
when balanced against the harm the Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer. The
UNITED STATES has no rational basis for asserting marijuana has any more medical
benefit for seriously ill patients in Washington D.C. than it does for seriously ill patients
in California.
102. The UNITED STATES and defendant HOLDER should be ENJOINED
from asserting the CSA in a manner that disenfranchises state voters. The UNITED
STATES and defendant HOLDER should be ENJOINED from asserting the CSA in a
manner that prevents state citizens from raising full compliance with state medical
marijuana laws as a defense to the CSA. The UNITED STATES and defendant
HOLDER should be ENJOINED from denying that federal law recognizes state
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
20/29
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
27
28
VE RIFIE D COMPL AINT
20
LAWO
F
FICEOFMATTHEWP
APPAS
22641LAKEFORESTDR.,
#B5-107
LAKEF
OREST,
CA
92630(949)382-1485
medical marijuana laws. The UNITED STATES and HOLDER should be ENJOINED
from ordering closure of California medical marijuana collectives that operate in full
compliance with California law.
103. Defendants COSTA MESA and LAKE FOREST should be ENJOINED
from seeking to use federal law as the sole basis for closure of patient collectives
operating in full compliance with California medical marijuana laws. Defendants
COSTA MESA and LAKE FOREST should be ENJOINED from eliciting letters from
the UNITED STATES ordering closure of medical marijuana collectives in those
California cities based on claims that there is no medical marijuana under federal law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following:
A. For the declaratory relief requested in this Complaint;
B. For the injunctive relief requested in this Complaint including, but not
limited to, a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent
injunction;
C. For damages in an amount to be proven at time of trial;
D. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs reasonable attorney fees;
E. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs costs of suit; and
F. Such other and further relief the Court deems proper.
DATED: __________________
______________________________________
MATTHEW PAPPASAttorney for Plaintiffs
2-22-2012
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
21/29
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
22/29
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
23/29
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
24/29
UNITED STATE: " ~ R J c r COURT, CENTRAL. DISTRiCtC IVIL CO VE R SIIEE T
1 (a) PLA INTIF FS (Ch:1i: boil if you arc rep=cnling yoursc:lrO) DEFE", DANTSMARLA JAMES; KATHERINE ALDRICH; and VlcroRiA PAPPAS UNITED STATES Of AMERICA; C ITY OF COSTA MF.5A.CALIfORNIA;
CIn ' OF LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA; and ERIC HOLDER, in bis c.pICityas A I ~ oflhe U o . i t S " t U : ' " O '
(b) Anomc:ys (Finn Name:, and Tdephone Number. If you an: rqm:senting)'\lUrKlf. provide s.amc.)MArn-tEW PAPPAS (SHN: 11(860). C IIARLES M. FARANO(SBN : 869 IS),DAVIO R. WELOI (SON: 2S1693). 2264 1 LAKE FOREST DRIVE. IIOSI 07lAKE FOREST, CA 92630, (9-19) 3&21485
Anomeys (I f Known)
II. BASIS OF J URJSDlCT ION (Plxe an X in one boil only,) Uf. C ITIZNSIllP OF PR INCIPAL PARTIES For Diversity Cases Only(Place an X in one boil fOt plainliffand one for dcfendanL)
o I U,S, OOVCTTll11ellt Plaintiff 0 3 Fedc:ral Questioo (U .S. PT' 0" PTF DO'Govcm_nt Not a Party) Citi zen of This Stille 0' 0 ' Incorporated or Principal PIa u D. O.ofBU5iness in !his Scaterl2 U,S, Govcmmcnt Defendant 0 " Diversity (Indiule Citizenship Ci!izcn of Anotha ' StatC 02 02 Incorporated and Principal Place 0' 0 'of Parties in Item 1II) ofBU5iness in Another State
Ci tizen or Subject of a Foreign Country 0 3 03 Foreign Nation 0 6 06IV. OR IG IN (Place an X in one b o ~ only.)rt l Original
Proceoding 02 Removed fromState Coon 0 3 Remanded from 0 4 Re instated orR'"1""'" o 5 T ~ f c r r c d from anomer dis!ric:t (specify): 0 6 MultiDiSIrK:ILitigationo 7 Appeal 10 District
Judge fromMagistrate JudgeAppellate Coun
V. REQ UESTED IN CO ;l.t PI,AINT : JURV DEM AND: 0 Yes !{ No(a.eck 'Yes' only ifdemalldcd incomplainL)C1...ASS ACTION . .-dff F.R.C,P. 23: 0 Ya rlNo o MO NEY DEMANDED IN CO MPl.AlNT: SVI. CAUSE OJ ' ACTION (Cite the U.S. C ivi l Statute under which you are filing.nd write a brief stalCmtnt ofcausc. Do not ei te juri.Jd.idional SWUtc5 uclu.sdiveQity.)
fiFTH AND FOURTEEr-mi AMENDMENTS, U.S. CONSTITlfIlON; 42 U.S.C. S. 19&3VII NATURE OF SUIT (Place X til Ollf bOl oaly )
OntER STAroms CONTRACT TORTI> TO"" PRISONER LAllOR0400 SUite Reapportionment 0 110 PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL PETITIONS DnO fair Labor Scandards0410 Antitnl.!l 01 20 Marine 0310 Airplane PROPERTY OS lO Motiontio Aa0430 Banb and Banking o no MillerAa o 31 S Airplane ProdI,W;l 0370 Otb:r fraud Vacate Sentence 0" LaborlMgrnL0 . ' " Comm=IICC 0'" Negotiable Il\SlJ1lI1lCIIt Liability 0 )7 1 Truth in Lcnd.ina Habeas Corpus Re illions
R a t e s l ~ o ISO Reco\'ery of 0120 Assault. Libel &: 0380 Otha' Pcnonal 0'" C n l . 1 0730 LaOOJlMgrnL0 '" DcporWion ~ r p t ; y r r w : n &: 5 . . . . Property DamItIc OBS Death PCllllty Reporting&:0 470 R.acli:eteu Influenced EnrotUment or 03 , . fed. Employcn:' 0385 Property Damage O l . Mandamus! Disclomrc Ac tand Corrupt Judgment Liability Product Liability "",,, 0740 RailWllY Labor AaOrglllliutions 0151 Mcdio;:arc Act 0 " " M.m. BANKRUPTCY 0550 Civ il Righlll o 190 Other Labor0 480 Consumer Credit o IS2 Recovery of Defaulted 0 '" Marine ProdI,W;l 0 422 Appeal 28 USC 0555 Prison Conditioo Litig8l:ionLiability0490 CablclSat TV StU&nl Loan ( E ~ e l . 0 3 " Motor Vehicle '" fORFErrURE J 0191 Empl. Ret. Inc.0810 Selective Service Vetel"llU) 0355 Motor Vehicle 0 42) Withdrawal 28 PgNALTY Security Acto SSG Set:u ritics/Commoditiesl 0153 Recovery of ProdUCI Liability USC 157 Q 610 Agri
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
25/29
UN ITED STATEt '- R J C T COURT, CENTRAL DlST RJ ClC IVrL CO VER SHEE T
UFORNIA
IDEfIoTICA L CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this coun and dismissed, remanded orclO!;Cd? II'No 0 Yeslisl case numbcJ1s):__________________________________________________RELATED CASES: Have lilly cases been previously filed in this coun thai arc related 10 the presenl case? 0 No r iY esnumbcr(s): SACV 1000402 AG (MLGx)
cases Ir e deemed rellted if I pr evious ly fil ed elSe I nd the pr ese nt use :all bo)(es thai apply) A. Arise from the same: or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or
'iiiB. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; orI i . For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges; oro D. Involve the same palent, lrademark or copyright,!ill! one of the faclors identified above in a, b or c also is present.
(When completi ng the following information, use an additional sheet if necessary.)List Ihe County in this District; California County outsidc of this Districl; Stale if other than California: or Foreign Country, in which EACII named plaintiff resides.Check here if the governmenl, its agencies or employees is a named plainliff. Iflhis box is checked, go to item (b).
in this District: California County outside of this District; State, i f other than C. lifornia: or Foreign CountryCOUNTY (JAMES); ORANGE COUNTY (PAPPAS); LOS
LES COUNTY (A LDRICH)
List the County in this District; California County outside o flhis Districr; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named defendant resides.Check here if he J:ovemment, its agencies or employees is a named defendant. Irthis bolt is checked, J:O to item (c).in this District: California Counly outside of Ibis District; Stale, if other than California; or Foreign Country
List the Coun ty in this Disl1ict; California County outside ofthi5 District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH claim arose.No te' 10 laod condemnation cases use the locatioo of the tract of la nd involved
in IhU District: California County outside of this District; State, ifother than California; or Foreign Counl!)'( 1S1); ORANGE & L.A. COUNTY (2ND):(3RO); L.A. COUNTY (4TH); ORANGE COUNTY
7TH): ORANGE & L.A. COUNTY (8TH )Angeles, Or aoge, Sa n Ber nlrdino, Riverside, Ven tu ra ,In land condemnation eases 1l.'IC the location of lract a
a nta Barbal'l, or San Luis Obispo Countiesd involved
F AITQRNEY (OR PRO PER): _ k ~ = J ; , A l L l , = = = = - _____ D.te __' Z . = - ' - - = _ = = _ _______Notice to Coun selfPll rties: The CV? I (15..44) Civil Cover Shetland the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the fil ing and service ofplcadingsor other papersas required by law. This form, approved bythdudicial Conference of the United. StatCli in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 31 iSDOI filedbut is used by the Clerk oftheCoun for the purpose of statistics, venue and initialing the civil docket shee t. (Formore detailed insJructi ons, see $CpIJ1Ite insJructions sheet.)
Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases:Na tu re of Suit Code Abbreviation
861 HIA
862 BL
863 DlWC
863 Dl WW
864 SSlD,., . SI(05108)
Statement of Ca use of Action
All claims for health ins urance benefits (Medicare) under Tide 18, Part A. of the Social Security Act, as amended.AIIlO, include claims by hospitals, ski lled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers ofserv iees under theprogram. (42 U.S.C. 1935FF(bAll claims for Lung" beoofits under Tille 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.(30 U.s.C. 923)An claims filed by insured won:ers for disability insurance bene fi ts under Title 2 of he Social Security Act, asamended; plus all claims filed for child's insurance benefilS based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405(gAll claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 oflbe Social SecurityAct, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405(gAll claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Ti lle 16 of he Social SecurityAct, as amendedAll claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 or lhe Social Security Act, as IIIlICndcd (42U.S.C.(g
C IVIL CO VER SHEET Page 2 o
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
26/29
Name & Address:MATrHEW PAPPAS (SBN: 171860)CHARLES FARANO (SBN: 86915)DAVID WELCH (SBN: 251693)22641 LAKE FOREST DR., #B5-107LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 [(949) 382-1485]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARLA JAMES; KATHERINE ALDRICH; andVICTORIA PAPPAS,
PLAINTIFF(S)v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; CITY OF COSTAMESA, CALLFORNlA; CITY OF LAKE FOREST,CALLFORNlA; and ERIC HOLDER, in his capacity asAttorney General of the United States, DEFENDANT(S) .
CASE NUMBERSACV12 -00280 JVS (RNax)
SUMMONS
TO: DEFENDANT(S): UNITED STATES OF AMERICAA lawsuit has been filed against you.Within 60 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), youmust serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached 00 complaint 0 amended complainto counterclaim 0 cross-claim or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civ il Procedure. The answer
or motion must be served on the plaintiff's attorney, MATTHEW PAPPAS , whose address is22641 LAKE FOREST DR . #B5-107. LAKE FOREST. CA 92630 . If you fail to do so,judgment by default will be entered against you for the rel ief demanded in the complaint. You also must fileyour answer or motion with the court.
Clerk, U.S. District Court22 2012Dated: __________ AM.YDeAVilABy:__________
Deputy Clerk(Seal o f he Court)
(Use 60 days if he defendant is the United States or a United Stales agency. or is an officer or employee of he United Slales. Al lowed60 day, by Rule 12(a)(3)].
CV..(lIA (10111 SUMMONS
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
27/29
Name & Add ress:MATTHEW PAPPAS (S BN : 171 860)CHARL ES FA RANO (SBN: 869 15)DAVID WELCH (SBN: 251693)22641 LAKE FOREST DR ., #B5- 107LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 [(949) 382-1485]
UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CAL IFORNIAMARLA JAMES; KATHERINE ALDRJCH; and
VICTORlA PAPPAS,PLA rNTIFF(S)
v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; C ITY OF COSTAMESA, CA LIFORNLA; C ITY OF LAKE FOREST,CALI FORNIA; and ERIC HOLDER, in hi s capacity asAttorney Genera l of the United States, DEFENDANT(S).
CASE NUMBER
SUMMONS
TO: DEFE DA NT(S): CITY OF LAKE FOREST, CA LIFORNIAA lawsuit has been filed against you.Within 30 days after service of this summ ons on you (not counting the day you received it), you
mu st serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached 1K I comp laint 0 amended comp lainto counterclaim 0 cross-cl aim or a mot ion under Ru le 12 of the Federa l Rules ofCivil Procedure . The answeror motion mu st be served on the plaintiff's attorney , MATTHEW PAPPAS , whose address is2264 1 LAKE FOREST DR .. #B5 -107, LAKE FOREST. CA 92630 . If you fail to do so,judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also mu st fileyour answer or motion with the court .
Clerk, U.S. Di strict Court
Dated:____ .......-",--'''"0___ _ By:_ _ _ _ M_YDe_V_LA___Deputy Clerk
(Seal of ile COllrt)
[Use 60 days if he deJendom is the U,/ired Slates or a Uni red States agency. or is an officer or employee of he Unired States. Allowed60 days by Rille 12(a)(J)).
CV-OIA (10/11 SUMM ONS
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
28/29
Name & Addr ess:MATTH EW PAPPAS (SBN: 171 860)CHARLES FARANO (SBN: 869 15)DAVID WELCH (SBN : 251693)22641 LAKE FO REST DR. , #B5-107LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 [(949)382-1 485]
UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAMARLA JAMES ; KATHERINE ALDRlCH; and
VICTORlA PAPPAS ,PLAINTIFF(S)v.
UN ITED STATES OF AMERI CA; CITY OF COSTAMESA, CA LIFORNIA; CITY OF LAKE FOREST,CALI FORN IA; and ERIC HOLDER, in his capacity asAttorney General of the United States, DEFENDANT{S).
CASE NUMBER
SJ\CVI2-00280 JVS lRNBx)
SUMMONS
TO: DEFENDANT(S): CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIAA lawsuit has been filed aga inst you.Within 30 days after service of thi s summons o n you (not count ing the day you received it), you
must serve on the plaint itT an answer to the attached 00 complai nt 0 amended complainto counterclaim 0 cross-cla im or a motion under Rul e 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answeror motion mu st be served on the plaintiff's anomey, MATTHEW PAPPAS , whose address is22641 LAKE FOREST DR .. #B5-107, LAKE FOREST. CA 22630 . If you fail to do so ,
judgmen t by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also mu st fileyour answer or motion w ith the court .
Clerk, U.S. Di strict Court
Dated: _____,_--'-W'-___ AMYDeAVLABy: __________Deputy Clerk
(Seal of the Co urt)
[Use 60 days if he defendalll is the United States or a United Stales agency. or is an officer or employee of Ihe United Stales. Allowed60 days by Rule 11(0)(3)].
CV..(l IA { IO/ll SUMMONS
-
8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint
29/29
Name & Address:MATTHEW PAPPAS (SBN : 171 860)CHARLES FARANO (S BN : 86915)DAVID WELCH (SBN: 251693)22641 LAKE FOREST DR ., #B5-1 07LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 [(949) 382-1485]
UNITED STATES DI STRI CT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAMARLA JAMES; KATHERINE ALDRJCH; and
VICTORIA PAPPAS,PLAINTIFF(S)v.
UN ITED STATES OF AMERICA; CITY OF COSTAMESA, CALIFORN IA ; CITY OF LAKE FOREST,CALIFORNIA ; and ERIC HOLDER, in hi s capacity as
DEFENDANT(S).
TO: DEFENDANT(S): ERJC HOLDERA lawsuit ha s been filed against you.
CASE NUMBERSACV12-00280 ,VS (RNBx)
SUMMONS
Within 60 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), youmust serve on the plaintiff an answer to the anached 4EI complaint 0 amended complainto counterclaim 0 cross-claim or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Ru les of Civil Procedure. Th e answeror motion mu st be served on the plaintiff' s anomey, MATTHEW PAPPAS , whose address is22641 LAKE FOREST DR., #B5-107, LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 . If you fail to do so,judgment by default wi ll be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must fileyour answer or motion with the court.
Clerk, U.S. District CourtH 20frDated:__________ By :_ _ --c:-A_M_Y...,De::-A...,VI_lA___
Deputy Clerk(Seal of he COllrl)
{Use 60 days if he defendant is Ille Uniled Siaies or a Uniled Stales agency, or is an officer or employee o f he Uniled SlaiCS. Allowed60 days by Rille Il(a)(3)j.