association of special agents v. jerry brown

8/3/2019 Association of Special Agents v. Jerry Brown

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/association-of-special-agents-v-jerry-brown 1/19

2

3

4

S

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2 0

2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

2 6

2 7

2 8

DAVID P. MASTAGNI, ESQ. (SBN 057721)DAVID E. MASTAGNI, ESQ. (SBN 0204244)ISAAC S. STEVENS, ESQ. (SBN 251245)

uperior Court O f CalifornFILED

SacrmtoASTAGNI, HOL STEDT, AMICK,MILLER & JOHNSEN, A.P.C.

1123/2011A Pro/essional Corporation

1 9 1 2tJt

Street

wDodwardSacramento, California 95811-3151DeputTelephone: (916) 446-4692am& Num ber.-Facsimile: (916) 447-46144-2011-8110111009Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff

Association of Special AgentsDepartment of Justice

D E P A R T M E N TSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

ASSOCIATION OF SPECIAL AGENTS -ASE NO.:DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

V ERI FI ED P ET I TI O N FO R WRI TPetitioner/Plaintiff,F MANDAMUS; COMPLAINT

FO R DEC LA RA T O RY A N DV.N J UNC T I V E RE LI EF

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his officialC O D E Civ. P R O C . §§ 526, 1060,capacity as Governor; ANA J. MATOSANTOS,085; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1 9 8 3 , 1985 , 1 9 8 8 ]in her official capacity as Director of theDepartment of Finance; and DOES Ito 100,

nlimited Civil Caseinclusive,mount in Controversy Exceeds$25,000

Defendants/Respondents

Plaintiff/Petitioner ASSOCIATION OF SPECIAL AGENTS - DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE (hereafter referred to as "Petitioner") hereby alleges as follows:

1 .laintiff/Petitioner ASSOCIATION OF SPECIAL AGENTS - DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the

State of California, Petitioner’s members are employed as Special Agents and Special Agent

Supervisors in the State of California Department of Justice ("DOJ.") As used herein, the terms

"SPECIAL AGENT" and "SPECIAL AGENTS" refers collectively to employees in the job

VERIFIED PETITION ANDSA-DOJ V. BROWN, ET AL.

TEDT. AMICK.COMPLAINT

9581



Ieneral fund.

2.he Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement ("BNE") is the oldest narcotics enforcement

3ureau in the United States. The BNE operates and manages a variety of programs throughout the

4

state.

50 .he BNE’s Clandestine Laboratory Enforcement Program ("CLEP") works to shut

6own illegal drug labs throughout the state, including clandestine labs ma nufacturing LSD, s ynthetic

7eroine, and methamphetamine.

81.he BNE also operates and participates in multi-jurisdictional, regional and special

9ask forces throughout the state. The regional task force program began in the 1970s, and

10

oordinates local law enforcement agencies in operations to combat regional drug and gang issues.

1 1

o deal with multi-jurisdictional drug trafficking and gang problems beyond the scope of regional

12ask forces, the BNE also assigns personnel to special task forces throughout the state. The BNE

13uns approximately 52 regional task forces from offices in Redding, Sacramento, San Francisco,

14resno, Riverside, San Jose, Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego.

152.ast year, BNE’s programs resulted in the seizure of billions of dollars in illegal

16rugs, including methamphetamine, cocaine, marijuana, and heroin. In July 2011, agents seized

17

ighteen kilos of cocaine from a vehicle crossing the border at the Calexico port of entry, In October

18011, special agents from the Inland Crackdown Allied Task Force conducted an undercover sting

19hat resulted in the seizure of fifty kilograms of cocaine worth an estimated five million dollars.

2 03 ,etitioner is informed and believes and thereon a lleges that the Attorney Gene ral will

21lose over two-thirds of the BNE’s task forces on December 31, 2011 because of the cuts to the

2 2ivision of Law Enforcement.

23

4,he Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence ("BIT") initiates complex law

2 4

nforcement and investigative actions. It investigates officer involved shootings, homicides, cold

2 5ases, sexual assaults, child pornography and exploitation, and human trafficking. It also acts as

2 6alifornia’s law enforcement liaison to Mexico and Interpol.

2 75 .he BIT operates the California Witness Relocation and Protection Program,

2 8rotecting witnesses and their families who are in danger as a result of testifying in criminal

VERIFIED PETITION AND

COMPLAINT

ASA-DO.) V. BROWN, FT AL.



1roceedings.

26.he BIT o perates the Major Crimes Program, w hich provides high-level expertise for

3

he investigation of complex and multi-jurisdictional crimes. In ad dition, the M ajor Crimes Program

4

eceives cases that exceed the ability of local agencies in terms of scope, resources, or expertise. It

5lso handles cases where conflicts of interest exist.

67.he BN E and BIT use sophisticated crime fighting techniques to combat drugs, Street

7angs, and violent criminal activities. These techniques are not typically available to local law

8nforcement agencies. As a result, the elimination of the BNE and BIl poses a serious threat to the

9afety of California’s citizens.

10

8,n June 30, 2011, Respondent Brown signed into law the State of California’s

1 1

udget for 2011-2012.

129.he State’s 2011-2012 Budget eliminated general fund support for the Department

13f Justice’s Division of Law Enforcement. As a result, the Division of Law Enforcement lost

14pproximately $36.8 million in funds in 2011, and will lose an additional $35 million in funds

15uring the next fiscal year.

160 .etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges approximately 206 SPECIAL

17

GENT positions were funded by the general fund. Petitioner is further informed and believes and

18hereon alleges that, as a result of the elimination of general fund money, these positions will be

19liminated absent this Court’s intervention.

201 .etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, upon elimination of all

21PECIAL AGENT positions funded by the general fund, only approximately eighteen SPECIAL

2 2GENT positions will remain in the BNE.

2 3

2 .etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that approximately thirty-four

2 4

f the BNE’s task forces will be eliminated as a result of the funding cuts alleged above.

253 .etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, as a result of the funding

26uts alleged above, the Division of Law Enforcement’s regional offices in Redding, San Jose,

27acramento, and Orange County have been closed,

2 84 .etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges the Attorney General cannot


COMPLAINT

ASA-DOJ v. BROWN, ET AL.



allocate general fund monies allocated to other Department of Justice programs to fund Division

of Law Enforcement Programs without Respondent Matosantos’ written approval.

25 . Further, Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that there has been

no express statutory authorization for eliminating the SPECIAL AGENTS’ functions as required

by Government Code sections 12502 and 15002,5,

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Infringement on Attorney General’s Constitutional Authority)

26 . Petitioner incorporates by reference all the forgoing paragraphs as though fully set

forth herein.

27 . California Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 (a) provides:

A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferiortribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance ofan act which the law specifically enjoins, as a duty resulting from anoffice, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to theuse and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled,and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by such inferior

tribunal, corporation, board, or person.

28 . A writ of mandate lies to compel a public official to perform an official act required

by law.

29 . A writ must issue when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy; the

respondent has a duty to perform, and the petitioner has a clear and beneficial right to performance.

30 . Article V, Section 13 of the State Constitution provides:

Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the AttorneyGeneral shall be the chief law officer of the State. It shall be the du tyof the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State areuniformly and adequately enforced. The Attorney General shall havedirect supervision over every district attorney and sheriff and oversuch other law enforcement officers as may be designated by law, inall matters pertaining to the duties of their respective offices, and

may require any of said officers to make reports concerning the

investigation, detection, prosecution, and punishment of crime intheir respective jurisdictions as to the Attorney General may seem

advisable. Whenever in the opinion of the Attorney General any lawof the State is not being adequately enforced in any county, it shall

be the duty of the Attorney General to prosecute any violations of

law of which the superior court shall have jurisdiction, and in suchcases the Attorney General shall have all the powers of a districtattorney. When required by the public interest or directed by theGovernor, the Attorney General shall assist any district attorney in

VERIFIED PETITION ANDSA-DOJ V. BROWN, ET AL.OMPLAINT

P i

6

9

10

1 112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



1he discharge of the duties of that office.

21espondents have clear, present, and ministerial duties to refrain from materially

3

nterfering with the Attorney General’s performance of her constitutional duties.

4

2.espondents have a clear, present, and ministerial duty to comply with the

5 I Government Code.

63 .espondents breached their clear, present, and ministerial duty by eliminating

7eneral fund support for the Division of Law Enforcement. Because the Respondents did not

8ppropriate general fund monies to the Division of Law Enforcement, the Attorney General will be

9orced to disband approximately two-thirds of the task forces in the Division of Law Enforcement

1 0

nd has already been forced to close several offices throughout the state.

1 1

4.etitioner and Petitioner’s members have a beneficial interest in Respondents’

1 2erformance of their duties to refrain from materially interfering with the Attorney General’s

13erformance of her constitutional duties. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that

1 4pproximately 206 SPECIAL AGENT positions will be eliminated as a result of the elimination of

1 5ivision of Law Enforcement functions funded by the general fund.

1 65.etitioner seeks a writ compelling Respondents to refrain from materially impairing

1 7

he Attorney General’s performance of her constitutional duties, either by compelling Respondents

1 8o restore general funds to the Division of Law Enforcement or compelling Respondents to allow

1 9he Attorney General to allocate other Department of Justice funds to the Division of Law

20nforcement. A judgment in favor of Petitioner will confer a significant benefit on the general

21ublic and employees of the Attorney General; namely, it will protect the integrity.of ongoing

22nvestigations in the Department of Justice’s Division of Law Enforcement and prevent

23

espondents from unlawfully interfering with the Attorney General’s selection and retention of

24

mployees. The necessity and burden of private enforcement of the rights at issue in this action

25ake an award of attorney’s fees and costs appropriate. Such fees and costs should not, in the

26nterest of justice, be paid out of any recovery in this action.

27

28

. CALIFORNIA 9581


COMPLAINT

o n

ASA-DOJ v. BROWN. FT AL.



SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Govt. Code § 15002.5)

36,etitioner hereby incorporates by reference all of the foregoing paragraphs as though

fully set forth herein.

37. Government Code section 15002.5 provides:

The attorney general may arrange and classify the work of theDepartment of Justice, and consolidate, abolish, or create divisions,bureaus, branches, sections or units within the department. Anystatutory or other reference to the Office of the Attorney General, theState Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, theDivision of Narcotic Enforcement, or the Division of GamblingControl shall be construed to refer to the division, bureau, branch,

section or unit within the department which is performing thefunctions referred to; and no such function shall be abolished without

express statutory authority. (Emphasis added.)

38. The Attorney General’s functions are set forth in the State Constitution and statutes.

39. Article V, section 13 of the State Constitution empowers the Attorney General to,

among other things, "see that the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced" and

prosecute any violations of law which she does not believe are being adequately enforced.

40 . Under Government Code section 15026, the Department of Justice’s functions

include investigating crime which "seeks to supply illegal goods and services such as narcotics,

prostitution, loan sharking, gambling, and other forms of vice to the public." Government Code

section 15026 further directs the Department of Justice to investigate organized criminal violations

involving intrusion into legitimate business activities by the use of illegitimate methods, including,

but not limited to, monopolization, terrorism, extortion, and tax evasion.

41 . Pursuant to Government Code section 15006, the Department of Justice’s functions

include maintaining a "continuing investigation on a statewide basis of investment frauds and

business crimes."

42 . Government Code section 15025 provides:

The Department of Justice shall seek to control and eradicateorganized crime in California by:

(a) Gathering, analyzing and storing intelligence pertaining toorganized crime.


C O MPLA IN T

7

ASA-DOJ v. BROWN. ET AL.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



(b) Providing this intelligence to local, state and federal lawenforcement units.

2c) Providing training and instruction to assist local and state law

enforcement personnel in recognizing and combating organized3rime.

(d) Providing a research resource of specialized equipment and4

ersonnel to assist local, state, and federal agencies in combating

organized crime.5e) Conducting continuing analyses and research of organized crime

in order to determine current and projected organized crime activity6n California.

(1) Initiating and participating in the prosecution of individuals and7roups involved in organized crime activities.

43.ursuant to Penal Code section 11 05 1:

The Department of Justice shall perform duties in the investigation,10

etection, apprehension, prosecution or suppression of crimes as maybe assigned by the Attorney General in the performance of his or her

1 1

uties under article V, section 13 of the Constitution.

124.ursuant to Penal Code section 11050:

13n any crime of statewide importance, the Attorney General may,

upon the request of any district attorney, sheriff or chief of police,

14ssign to such officer so requesting, an investigator or investigatorsfor the investigation or detection of crimes, and the apprehension or

15rosecution of criminals.

165 .ursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11450,

17

The Attorney General may, in conformity with the State Civil18ervice Act, Part 2 (commencing with section 18500), Division 5,

Title 2 of the Government Code, employ such agents, chemists,19lerical, and other employees as are necessary for the conduct of the

affairs of the Department of Justice in carrying out its responsibilities2 0pecified in this division.

216 .espondents have a clear, present, and ministerial duty to refrain from abolishing

2 2he functions of the Attorney General, including functions performed by the Department of Justice’s

2 3

ivision of Law Enforcement, without express statutory authority.

2 4

7 .espondents breached their duties by withholding general fund monies from the

25ivision of Law Enforcement’s budget.

2 68 .y eliminating general fund support from the Division of Law Enforcement,

2 7espondents abolished the functions of the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement and the Bureau of

2 8nvestigation and Intelligence.

VERIFIED PETITION ANDSADOJ V. BROWN, FT AL.DI. AMft’K,OMPLAINT

ONAL C ORPORATION

ORNIA 9 5 8 1



19,etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, without general fund

7

upport, all positions in the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement and Bureau of Investigation and

3ntelligence not funded by special funds must be eliminated.

4

0.etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, as a result of

5espondents’ elimination of general fund support to the Division of Law Enforcement, the

6epartment of Justice will no longer be able to perform all the duties of investigation, detection,

7nd apprehension of crimes assigned to the Division of Law Enforcement by the Attorney General

8n the performance of her constitutional duties.

9i.etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, as a result of the

10

espondents’ elimination of general fund support to the Division of Law Enforcement, the

1 1

epartment of Justice will no longer be able to perform all the duties assigned to the Division of

12aw Enforcement by the Attorney General.

132 .etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, as a result of

14espondents’ elimination of general fund support to the Division of Law Enforcement, the Division

15ill no longer be able to assign SPECIAL AGENTS for the investigation and detection of crimes.

16etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Respondents have not acted in conformity

17

ith a statute enacted by the Legislature expressly abolishing the functions of the Bureau of

18arcotic Enforcement or the Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence.

193 .etitioner has a clear, present, and beneficial interest in the enforcement of

20espondents’ duty to refrain from abolishing the functions of the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement

21nd the Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence without express statutory authority. Petitioner is

22nformed and believes and thereon alleges that approximately 206 SPECIAL AGENT positions will

23

e eliminated as a result of the elimination of Division of Law Enforcement functions funded by

2 4

he general fund.

254.etitioner has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law to challenge the

26espondents’ violation of Government Code section 15002.5.

2 75.alifornia Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 provides in pertinent part:

2 8pon motion, a court may award attorneys’ fees to a successful party


COMPLAINT

9

ASA-DOJ v. BROWN, FT AL,



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

26

27

2 8

against one or more opposing parties in any action which hasresulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the publicinterest if: (a) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary ornonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a largeclass of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of privateenforcement, or of enforcement by one public entity against anotherpublic entity, are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) suchfees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery,if any.

5 6 . A judgment in favor of Petitioner will confer a significant benefit on the general

public and employees of the Attorney General; namely, it will protect the integrity of ongoing

investigations in the DOJ Division of Law Enforcement and prevent Respondents from unlawfully

abolishing functions of the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement and the Bureau of Investigation and

Intelligence without express statutory authority. The necessity and burden of private enforcement

of the rights at issue in this action make an award of attorney’s fees and costs appropriate. Such fees

and costs should not, in the interest of justice, be paid out of any recovery in this action.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Govt. Code § 12502)

5 7 . Petitioner hereby incorporates by reference all of the foregoing paragraphs as though

fully set forth herein.

5 8 . The Attorney General is directly elected by the people of the State of California, and

is the chief law enforcement official of the State. The Attorney General carries out independent

duties assigned to her office, (See Gov. Code §§ 12500 et seq.)

5 9 . Pursuant to Government Code section 15000, the Attorney General is charged with

directing and controlling the Department of Justice. These duties include managing the Department

of Justice’s Division of Law Enforcement.

6 0 . The Attorney General has the authority to appoint employees to act in furtherance

of the purposes of the Attorney General’s office.

6 1 . Government Code section 12502 provides:

The Attorney General may appoint and fix the salaries of suchAssistant Attorneys General, Deputy Attorneys General, serviceagents, experts, and technical and clerical employees as he deemsnecessary for the proper performance of the duties of his office. Eachappointee is a civil executive officer.

OIINSEN


C OM PL A I NT

10

ASA-DOJ V. BROWN, FT AL.



12.espondents have a clear, present, and ministerial duty to refrain from infringing on

2he Attorney General’s authority to appoint SPECIAL AGENTS.

3

3.espondents breached this duty by eliminating the general fund from the Division

4

f Law Enforcement’s budget. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, as a

5esult of the elimination of the general fund support, approximately 206 SPECIAL AGENT

6ositions will be eliminated.

74.etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Attorney General Karnala

8arris opposes the elimination of SPECIAL AGENT positions from the Division of Law

9nforcement. Petitioner is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that, but for the

10

pecific allocation of budget cuts to the Division of Law Enforcement, the Attorney General would

11

llocate the required budget cuts to other parts of her budget and retain the SPECIAL AGENT

12ositions Respondents are forcing her to eliminate.

135.etitioner has a clear, present, and beneficial interest in the enforcement of

14espondents’ duty to refrain from infringing on the Attorney General’s right to appoint SPECIAL

15GEN TS. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that approximately 20 6 SPEC IAL

16GENT positions will be eliminated as a result of the budget reductions specifically allocated to

17

he Department of Justice’s Division of Law Enforcement.

186.etitioner has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law to challenge the

19espondents’ infringement on the Attorney General’s right to appoint SPECIAL AGENTS.

207 .judgment in favor of Petitioner will confer a significant benefit on the general

21ublic and employees of the Attorney General; namely, it will protect the integrity of ongoing

22nvestigations in the DOJ Division of Law Enforcement and prevent Respondents from unlawfully

23

nterfering with the Attorney General’s selection and retention of employees. The necessity and

24

urden of private enforcement of the rights at issue in this action make an award of attorney’s fees

25nd costs appropriate. Such fees and costs should not, in the interest of justice, be paid out of any

26ecovery in this action.

27

28/INI, HOLSTED’T AMICK.

ESSIONAL CORPORATION

IFORNIA 9581


COMPLAINT

1 1



FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(28 U.S.C. § 1983)(Against Respondent Brown and Does 1 through 50)

68 . Petitioner incorporates by reference all the forgoing paragraphs as though fully set

II forth herein.

69 . Petitioner is an affiliate organization of the California Statewide Law Enforcement

Association ("CSLEA"), the recognized bargaining agent for employees in State Bargaining Unit

7, which includes SPECIAL AGENTS.

70 . CSLEA’s Board of Directors is comprised of the Presidents of each affiliate

organization representing classifications of employees in State Bargaining Unit 7, including the

President of the ASSOCIATION OF SPECIAL AGENTS - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

71 . Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, on or about September

9, 2010, CSLEA’s Directors including the ASSOCIATION OF SPECIAL AGENTS -

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’s former President - voted to endorse Meg Whitman’s candidacy

in the 2010 gubernatorial election.

72 . Thereafter, CSLEA did in fact officially endorse the candidacy of Meg Whitman for

governor of California.

73 . At the time CSLEA announced its endorsement of Meg Whitman, Respondent

Brown was the State Attorney General.

74 . Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges the gubernatorial campaign

of Meg Whitman used CSLEA’s endorsement to recruit potential voters to elect her as California

governor.

75 . Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Meg Whitman’s gubernatorial

campaign focused on the fact that the union representing SPECIAL AGENTS did not endorse

Brown, who was Attorney General at the time.

76 . On November 2, 2010, Brown was elected Governor of California. He was sworn

in as Governor on January 3, 2011.

77 . After taking office, Brown released a budget summary including unprecedented,

dramatic cuts to the SPECIAL AGENTS within the Department of Justice.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOFINSEN

VERIFIED PETITION ANDSA-DOJ V. BROWN. ET AL.

COMPLAINT

12



78.he budget proposed, supported, defended and ultimately signed into law by Brown

2liminated General Fund support for the Division of Law Enforcement.

3

9,etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Legislature did not

4

esire to allocate budget reductions specifically to the Division of Law Enforcement.50.etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Respondent Brow n demand ed

6hat funds be reduced for the Division of Law Enforcement, and refused to approve the budget

7unless such cuts were included.

81.espondent Brown acted under color of state law to pass this budget provision.

92.etitioner’s members have since been issued employment option letters, which state

10

o each recipient "You are an employee who will be directly impacted as a result of these

1 1eductions." The letters also demand that each recipient choose from a list of options that would

12ntail significant changes to their employment, including the selection of an alternative work

13ocation in the event of transfer, demotion, and the option of selection of separation from state

14ervice.

153 .etitioner is informed and believes and therefore alleges that the Office of the

16ttorney General will issue notices on December 1, informing SPECIAL AGENTS of layoffs to

17

heir personnel.

184 .etitioner’s participation in the endorsement of Meg Whitman’s gubernatorial

19ampaign w as constitutionally protected speech because it was related to political topics and did not

20all under any of the exceptions to protected political speech.

215.espondent Brown’s conduct, performed under color of state law, has deprived

2 2etitioner of its constitutional right of free speech embodied in the First Amendment by depriving

2 3

etitioner the ability to contribute to the political dialogue without fear of targeted punishment or

2 4

olitical retaliation.

256 .etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Respondent Brown proposed

2 6nd supported legislation to eliminate general fund support for SPECIAL AGENTS because of

2 7etitioner’s political endorsement of Meg Whitman.

2 87.etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Petitioner’s constitutionally

A 95 8 1


COMPLAINT1)

1.)

ASA-DOJ V. BROWN, ET AL,



protected political speech was a primary and substantial motive for Brown’s promotion and passage

7

f the bill eliminating general fund support for the Department of Justice Division of Law

3

nforcement.

4

8.etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, absent Petitioner’s

5onstitutionally protected political speech, Brown would not have promoted and passed the

6rovision eliminating general fund support for the Department of Justice Division of Law

7 I Enforcement.

89.espondent Brown’s political retaliation would cause an individual or entity of

9rdinary firmness to silence and censor its political discourse.

10

0 .etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Respondents Brow n and D oes

1 1

through 50, inclusive, worked in concert to retaliate against Petitioner and its members for their

12olitical activities.

131 .etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Respondents acted with

14he shared purpose of eliminating general fund support for the Department of Justice Division of

15aw Enforcement to retaliate against Petitioner and its members for their political activities.

162 .etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Petitioner’s and

17

etitioner’s members’ constitutionally protected political speech was a primary and substantial

18otive for the promotion and passage of the bill eliminating general fund support for the

19epartment of Justice Division of Law Enforcement.

2 03 .etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, absent Petitioner’s

21onstitutionally protected participation in the endorsement of Meg Whitman, the Respondents

2 2ould not have demanded the elimination of general fund support for the Department of Justice

2 3

ivision of Law Enforcement.

2 4

25IFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Injunctive Relief)2 6Code Civ. Proc. § 526)

2 74 .etitioner incorporates by reference all the forgoing paragraphs as though fully set

2 8orth herein.


COMPLAINT

14

A5A-DOJ V. BROWN, ET AL,



95.etitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Respondents intend to

2erminate the employment of approximately 170 SPECIAL AGENTS on December 31, 2011, as

3

videnced by communications distributed by the Attorney General’s office. Petitioner is informed

4

nd believes and thereon alleges that approximately 206 SPECIAL AGENT positions will be

5liminated from the Division of Law Enforcement unless funding is restored or the Attorney

6eneral is allowed to allocate other funds from her budget to make up for the money withheld from

7he Division of Law Enforcement.

86 .udicial relief is urgently needed because Respondents will terminate approximately

970 SPECIAL AGENTS on December 31, 2011.

10

7 .espondents must be enjoined from violating State law as soon as possible prior to

1 1he violation.

128 .etitioner has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its petition for

13andamus and declaratory relief causes of action.

149.bsent prompt resolution or a stay, Petitioner and its members will be irreparably

15njured in that:

16.n information and belief, approximately 206 SPECIAL AGENT positions will be

17

liminated from the Division of Law Enforcement on December 31, 2011;

18.n information and belief, many of the SPECIAL AGENTS who are not laid off on

19ecember 3 1, 2 01 1 w ill be forced to relocate to different geographical regions of the

2 0tate, and/or be demoted;

21.n information and belief, ongoing investigations by the Bureau of Narcotic

2 2nforcement and the Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence will be terminated or

23

e affected materially and adversely by Respondents’ actions.

24

00. Petitioner is without an adequate remedy at law. If Respondents are not restrained

25nd ordered to comply with article V, section 13 of the Constitution and Government Code sections

2 62502 and 15002.5 approximately 206 SPECIAL AGENTS positions will be eliminated, resulting

2 7n the abandonment of ongoing investigations and relocation of Petitioner’s members.

2 801. The facts and circumstances of this case warrant temporary, preliminary, and


COMPLAINT

15

ASA-DOJ V. BROWN, ET AL.



Iermanent injunctive relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.

2

3IXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Relict)4

Code Civ. Proc.§

1060)

502. Plaintiff/Petitioner incorporates by reference all the forgoing paragraphs as though

6ully set forth herein.

703. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Petitioner and Respondents

8oncerning their respective rights and obligations under Government Code section 12502. As

9lleged in this complaint, Petitioner contends Respondents violated Government Code section

10

250 2 by allocating budget cuts to the Department of Justice Division of Law E nforcement that will

1 1

esult in the forced termination of the Attorney General’s employees. Petitioner is informed and

12elieves and thereon alleges Respondents dispute this contention.

1304. Petitioner seeks to enforce its rights and to declare Respondents’ obligations under

14he law. In particular, Petitioner asks the Court to declare that Respondents are prohibited from

15equiring the Attorney General to allocate budget reductions in a manner that forces the Attorney

16eneral to terminate employees in the Department of Justice Division of Law Enforcement.

17


18oncerning their respective rights and obligations under Government Code section 15002.5. As

19lleged in this complaint, Petitioner contends Respondents violated Government Code section

2 05002.5 by abolishing the functions of the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement and the Bureau of

21nvestigation and Intelligence without express statutory authority to do so. Petitioner is informed

2 2nd believes and thereon alleges Respondents dispute this contention.

2 3


2 4

oncerning their respective rights and obligation to allow compliance with article V, section 13 of

25he State Constitution. As alleged in this complaint, Petitioner contends Respondents materially

2 6nterfered with the Attorney General’s constitutional authority by abolishing the functions of the

2 7ureau of Narcotic Enforcement and the Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence without express

2 8tatutory authority to do so. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Respondents


COMPLAINT

16

ASA-DOJ V. BROWN, ET AL.



1ispute this contention.

207. Petitioner seeks to enforce its rights and its members’ rights and to declare

3

espondents’ obligations under the law. Petitioner asks the Court to declare that Respondents are

4

rohibited from prohibiting the Attorney General from allocating Department of Justice funds to

5he Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement and the Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence to preserve

6he functions of those bureaus.

7

8

9herefore, Petitioner prays for judgment as follows:

10

.or issuance of writ of mandate compelling Respondents to refrain from interfering

11

ith the Attorney General’s Constitutional and statutory authority to appoint employees;

12.or issuance of a writ of mandate compelling Respondents to allow the Attorney

13eneral to allocate to the Division of Law Enforcement funds budgeted to other Department of

14ustice programs;

15.or issuance of a writ compelling Respondents to restore the status quo ante;

1 6.or a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction

1 7

estraining Respondents from prohibiting the Attorney General from allocating Department of

18ustice funds to pay for Division of Law Enforcement programs;

19.or a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction

20rohibiting Respondents from abolishing functions of the Department of Justice unless and until

21statute is enacted authorizing the abolishment of those functions;

22.or a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction

2 3

rohibiting Respondents from terminating the employment of SPECIAL AGENTS employed in the

24

tate of California Department of Justice;

25.or a determination that the Respondents are not entitled to require the Attorney

26eneral to allocate budget reductions to the Department of Justice Division of Law Enforcement;

2 7.or a determination that Respondents violated Government Code section 15002.5

2 8y eliminating general fund funding from the Division of Law Enforcement;


COMPLAINT

17



1.or an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to California Code of Civil

2rocedure section 1021,5, California Government Code section 800, and 28 U.S.C. section 1988;

3

0.or costs of suit incurred herein; and

4

1.or such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

5

6ated: November 22, 2010ASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT, AMICK,MILLER & JOHNSEN, A.P.C.

7

8

By9AVID P. MASTAGNI

10

ttorney for Petitioner

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2 7

28

REET


COMPLAINT

ASADOJ v. BROWN. ET AL.



1ERIFICATION2, Michael Loyd, declare:

3

.am the President of the Association of Special Agents - Department of Justice.

4

,am fully familiar with the facts in the above-titled m atter, and if necessary, 1 would

5e able to offer true and accurate testimony regarding the same.

6.verify each and every paragraph of this Petition for Writ of Mandamus and

7omplaint as true and correct based upon my personal knowledge of the above-referenced events,

8xcept where alleged by information and belief, and if called upon to testify hereto, I could and

9ould do so competently.

10

declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the

1 1

oregoing declaration is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and if called upon to testify

12hereto, I could and would competently do so.

13

14xecuted on November 23, 2011 inalifornia.

15

16

17

ICHAEL LOYD, ,7 ’

18

19

2 0

2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

25

2 6

2 7

2 8

HOLSTEDT. AMICK.

VERIFIED PETITION AND ASA-DOJ V. BROWN, ET AL.

association of special agents v. jerry brown

Documents