CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION v. MATOSANTOS

Petitioners' Partial Opposition

Cal.September 23, 2011

No. $194861 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENTASSOCIATION,ET AL. SUPREME COUR}PS tISeGe | Petitioners, feii F=F V. SEP 23 pai ANA MATOSANTOS,ET AL., Freaerick K. Ohitien Clerk7 MEU: A Respondents. ‘Deputy PETITIONERS’ PARTIAL OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT MATOSANTOS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE STEVEN L. MAYER(No. 62030) smayer@howardrice.com EMILY H. WOOD(No. 260382) HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY FALK & RABKIN ~ A Professional Corporation Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4024 Telephone: 415/434-1600 Facsimile: 415/677-6262 Attorneysfor Petitioners INTRODUCTION Respondent Matosantos has requested the Court to take judicial notice of several documents, including “an excerpt from the | Preliminary [Offering] Statement, dated September 6, 2011 for $5,400,000,000 State of California 2011-12 Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series A-1 and Series A-2, Introduction, page A-15.” Matosantos Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”’) at 1. Petitioners do not oppose Matosantos’ other requests for judicial notice, but her request to notice this document (Exhibit C) should be denied. ARGUMENT iF EXHIBIT C IS NOT RELEVANTTO ANYISSUE BEFORE THE COURT. Irrelevant documents are not subject to judicial notice. People v. Young, 34 Cal. 4th 1149, 1171 n.3 (2005) (judicial notice “cannot be taken of any matter that is irrelevant’) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Preliminary Official Statement is irrelevant because it does not tend to prove or disprove any material fact at issue in the Petition or the State’s Return. EVID. CODE §210. Matosantos relies on this document to show that: (a) the State will derive a fiscal benefit from ABX1 26; and (b) the Legislature therefore would have enacted that statute by itself had it known that ABX1 27 would be declared invalid. See DOF Br. 23-24, 30 & n.14. But this document was prepared on September 6, 2011—almost three months after ABIX 26 and 27 were passed—and therefore could not have been relied upon by the Legislature in deciding whether to pass ABIX 26 and 27. Accordingly, it provides no evidence of legislative intent. Jn re Marriage of Pendleton & Fireman, 24 Cal. 4th 39, 47 n.6 (2000) (New Jersey statute was enacted after enactment of California statute and therefore was not relevant to Legislature’s intent in passing California statute). Indeed, nothing in the legislative record of either bill suggests that the Legislature received any information regarding the fiscal impact of passing ABX1 26alone. JUDICIAL NOTICE CANNOTBE TAKEN OF THE TRUTH OF THE STATEMENTS MADEIN EXHIBIT C. ‘Even if the Court could take judicial notice of Exhibit C, that would not encompassjudicial notice of the truth of the statements made therein—in particular, the statements in the | Preliminary Official Statement regarding the fiscal impact of ABX1 26. Even when a court takes judicial notice of an official act, it “do[es] not take judicial notice of the truth of all matters stated therein. [T]he taking of judicial notice of the official acts of a governmental entity does not in and of itself require acceptance of the truth of factual matters which might be deduced therefrom... .” People v. Castillo, 49 Cal. 4th 145, 157 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Arce v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 181 Cal. App. 4th 471, 482 (2010) (while courts “may take judicial notice of... official acts of state agencies, the truth of matters asserted in such documents is not subject to judicial notice’) (citation omitted). Accordingly, the conclusory statement in the Preliminary Official Statement concerning the purported fiscal impact of ABX1 26 is not subject to judicial notice. | CONCLUSION Respondent’s request for judicial notice of the Preliminary Official Statement should be denied. DATED:September 23, 2011. WO3 092311-112080007/L12/1658755/F Respectfully, STEVEN L. MAYER EMILY H. WooD HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY FALK & RABKIN A Professional Corporation me(A STEVEN L. MAYER Attorneysfor Petitioners PROOF OF SERVICE J, Myrna M. Da Cunha,declare: | J am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action; my business address is Three Embarcadero Center, Seventh Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4024. On September 23, 2011, I served the following document(s) describedas: PETITIONERS’ PARTIAL OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT MATOSANTOS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE O BY FACSIMILE: by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. o BY U.S. MAIL: by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at San Francisco, California addressedas set forth below. O BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: by transmitting via email the document(s) listed aboveto the email address(es) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. i] BY FEDERAL EXPRESS: byplacing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a Federal Express agent for delivery. Cl BY MESSENGER: served the documents described above on the parties listed below by causing them to be delivered by hand to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. PROOF OF SERVICE -1- Jennifer K. Rockwell, Esq. Chief Counsel Department of Finance State Capitol, Room 1145 915 “L” Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 445-4142 Fax: (916) 323-0060 Attorneysfor RespondentAna Matosantos, Director ofFinance Richard R. Karlson, Esq. Interim County Counsel Brian E. Washington, Esq. Assistant County Counsel Claude F. Kolm, Esq. Deputy County Counsel State of California Office of the Alameda County Counsel. 1221 Oak Street, Suite 450 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 272-6700 Fax: (510) 272-5020 Attorneysfor Respondent Patrick O’Connell, Auditor-Controller, County ofAlameda Miguel Marquez County Counsel Orry P. Korb Assistant County Counsel Lizanne Reynolds Deputy County Counsel James R. Williams Deputy County Counsel Office of the County Counsel 70 West Hedding Street East Wing, 9th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 Phone: (408) 299-5900 Fax: 408) 292-7240 Attorneysfor Vinod K. Sharma, Auditor-Controller ofthe County of Santa Clara and the County of Santa Clara Richard J. Chivaro, Esq. Office of the State Controller State of California Legal Department 300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1850 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 445-2636 Fax: (916) 322-1220 Attorneysfor Respondent John Chiang, California State Controller Kamala D. Harris, Esq. Attorney General Ross C. Moody,Esq. Deputy Office of the Attorney General State of California 455 Golden Gate Avenue Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone:: (415) 703-1376 Fax : (415) 703-1234 Attorneysfor Respondents Ana Matosantos, Director ofFinance _ and John Chiang, California State Controller PROOF OF SERVICE -2- I am readily familiar with the practice for collection and processing of documents for delivery by overnight service by Federal Express of Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin, A Professional Corporation, and that practice is that the document(s) are deposited with a regularly maintained Federal Express facility in an envelope or package designated by Federal Express fully prepaid the same day as the day ofcollection in the ordinary course of business. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at San Francisco, California on September 23, 2011. we OeCb Myyna Da Cunha PROOF OF SERVICE -3-