CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION v. MATOSANTOS

Respondents, Ana Matosantos and John Chiang, Supplemental Brief

Cal.September 28, 2011

CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, CITY OF UNION CITY, CITY OF SAN JOSE, and JOHNF. SHIREY, Petitioners, Vv. ANA MATOSANTOS,in herofficial capacity as Director of Finance, JOHN CHIANG,in his official capacity as the Controller of the State of California, PATRICK O'CONNELL,in his official capacity as the Auditor-Controller of the County of Alameda andasa representative of the class of county auditor-controllers, Respondents. 4 VEE COURTADVME LUT CO \ of California a m e e Case No. §194861 - rane Caaneth EE wit= COURT a faprEg reeerial' COOK ae On ryion Ciarka wif ene, ceepy Te * , eaoT - eeineeDosRy NOTICE OF RELATED CASE KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California MANUEL M. MEDEIROS State Solicitor General DOUGLAS J. Woops Senior Assistant Attorney General PETER A. KRAUSE Supervising Deputy Attorney General SETH E, GOLDSTEIN Deputy Attorney General Ross C. Moopy Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 142541 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Telephone: (415) 703-1376 Fax: (415) 703-1234 Email: Ross.Moody@doj.ca.gov Attorneysfor Respondents Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department ofFinance, and State Controller John Chiang Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.300, subdivision (d), respondent Ana Matosantos submits the attached Notice of Related Case filed in City of Cerritos, et al. v. State of California, et al., Sacramento Superior Court Number 34-201 1-80000952-CU-WM-GDS.As explained in the attached notice, the City of Cerritos case is a constitutional challenge to ABX1 26 and ABX1 27 which alleges many of the same legal theories present in the instant case, involves substantially identical facts and legal issues, and is likely to require substantial duplication ofjudicial resourcesif heard simultaneously in different courts. Dated: September 28, 2011 Respectfully submitted, KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California MANUEL M. MEDEIROS State Solicitor General DOUGLAS J. WOODS Senior Assistant Attorney General PETER A. KRAUSE » Supervising Deputy Attorney General SETH E. GOLDSTEIN Deputy Attorney General Ross C. MOODY Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Respondents Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department ofFinance, and State Controller John Chiang SA2011101911 20531530.doc ATTACHMENT y “ CM-015 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY(Name, State Bar number, and address); Ross C. Moody (State Bar No. 142541) ‘ Deputy Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 E-MAIL ADDRESS(Optionay: Ross.Moody @do}.ca.gov ATTORNEY FOR (Name Respondent State of California,et al. FOR COURT USE ONLY tecepHone no: (415) 703-1376 EAX NO.(Optional; (415) 703-1234 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Sacramento streeTAnpress: 720 9th Street MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE: Sacramento, CA 95814 BRANCH NAME: PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: CITY OF CERRITOS,et al. 34-2011.80000950-CU-WM-GD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: STATE OF CALIFORNIA,et al. JUDICIAL OFFICER: The Hon. Lloyd Connelly DEPT.: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE 33 Identify, in chronological order according to date offiling, all cases related to the case referenced above. 1. a. b. c. Title: California Redevelopment Association, et al. v. Matosantos,etal. Case number. S194861 Court: [__] same as above other state or federal court (name and address): California Supreme Court, 350 McAllister St., SF . Department: Case type: L___| limited civil [J unlimited civil (J probate LJ family law other (specify): see attachment Filing date: July 18, 2011 Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" [|] Yes No Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (checkall that apply): [_] involves the same parties and is based on the sameorsimilar claims. arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. [1 involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the sameproperty. is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resourcesif heard by different judges. Additional explanation is attached in attachment 1h . Status of case: pending . [] dismissed [| with [| without prejudice L_] disposed of by judgment 2. a. Title: Case number: c. Court [__] same as above [-_] other state or federal court (name and address): d. Department: Page 1 of 3 Form Approved for Optional Use NOTICE OF RELATED CASE Cal. Foretacourtintocagov Judicial Council of California CM-015 [Rev. July 1, 2007} CM-015 | PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: CITY OF CERRITOS,etal. CASE NUMBER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: STATE OF CALIFORNIA,etal. 34-2011-80000952-CU-WM-GD 2. (continued) e. Case type: [__] limited civil [__] unlimited civil [_] probate [__] familylaw [__] other(specify): f. Filing date: Hasthis case been designated or determined as "complex?" [|] Yes [_] No Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (checkall that apply): [_] involves the same parties and is based on the sameorsimilar claims. [__] arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law orfact. L__] involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property. [] is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. L_] Additional explanation is attached in attachment 2h i. Status of case: Lj pending . [| dismissed [| with [_] without prejudice [] disposed of by judgment Title: Case .number: Court: [__] same as above [__] other state or federal court (name and address): . Department: . Case type: L_] limited civil [-_] unlimited civil [__] probate L__] family law [__] other (specify): Filing date: Hasthis case been designated or determined as "complex?" LC] Yes £_] No Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (checkall that apply): [_] invotves the same parties and is based on the sameorsimilar claims. [] arises from the sameor substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law orfact. [__] involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property. [_] is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication ofjudicial resources if heard by different judges. L__] Additional explanation is attached in attachment 3h . Status of case: CO] pending [_] dismissed [__] with [__] without prejudice [__] disposed of by judgment 4. [__] Additional related cases are described in Attachment 4. Numberof pages attached: Date: elz7]}eot Koss CC. Moody > LEC brn {TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PARTY OoRATTORNEY) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) CN-015 [Rev.July 1, 2007 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE Page 2 of 3 City of Cerritos,et al. v. State of California, et al. No. 34-2011-80000952-CU-WM-GD ATTACHMENT Petition for writ of mandate invoking the original jurisdiction of the California Supreme Court. City of Cerritos, et al. v. State of California, et al. No. 34-2011-80000952-CU-WM-GD ATTACHMENT th OnJuly 18, 2011, the California Redevelopment Association, along with the California League of Cities, the cities of Union City and San Jose, and taxpayer John Shirey filed a petition for writ of mandate in the California Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of ABX1 26 and ABX1 27, two budget trailer bills. (California Redevelopment Association, et al. y. Ana Matosantos, et al., Case No. $194861.) ABX1 26 calls for all local Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs) to be dissolved as of October 1, 2011. ABX]1 27 creates a method whereby existing RDAs could convert themselves into a new form of RDA and continueto exist, although they would have to pay higher fees to school, fire and transit districts to do so. The package of the two statutes together provided $1.7 billion in budget savings for FY 2011-12. The primary claim advanced in $194861 is that the Legislature violated Proposition 22, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in November 2010. Proposition 22, among other things, prohibits the state from enacting new lawsthat redirect property tax revenues that would otherwise flow to RDAsto other purposes such as school funding. Both the petitioners and respondents agreed that the case wasofsufficient statewide importance that the Court should invokeits original jurisdiction and both urged the Court to take the case. By order issued August 11, 2011, and modified on August 17, 2011, the California Supreme Court agreed to exercise its original jurisdiction to hear the case, and issued an orderto show cause whyrelief should not be granted. The Court has set an expedited briefing schedule, and hasindicated that it will rule by January 15,2012: The Supreme Court granted a partial stay of the statutes, but left in place the “freeze” provisions which restrict RDA financial actions to paying debt service and other enforceable agreements. Therationale for the Supreme Court to assert jurisdiction over case S194861 was to ensure prompt andfinal resolution of an issue of statewide importance. A copy of the Supreme Court’s orderis attached hereto. The California Redevelopment Association is comprised of over 350 redevelopment agencies, including many ofthe petitioners in the instant case. Jt has advanced manyof the same theories in $194861 as those advanced herein, including violations of Articles XIII, section 25.5(a)(7), XII, sections 24(b), 25.5(a)(1), and 25.5(a)(3), XILIB, section 6(b)(3), and XVI, section 16 of the California Constitution. Main briefing in S194861 is complete, and the Court has indicated that argument will be held soon, with a decision to be issued by January 15, 2012. Giventhe significant judicial capital that the Supreme Court has devotedto this issue,litigating substantially similar issues before another court prior to the Supreme Court’s impending decision would result in a substantial duplication ofjudicial resources. 08/17/2011 12:35 FAX , [0002/0003 . SUPREME COURT FILED AUG 17 201i Frederick K. Ohlrich Clerk $19486] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 72? En Banc CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATIONetal., Petitioners, Vv. ANA MATOSANTOS,as Director, etc. et al., Respondents. The court’s order of August 11, 2011, is modified to read as follows: _ The request for a stay of chapter 5, Statutes 2011, First Extraordinary Session (Assembly Bill No. 26 X1) is granted, except that the request to stay Division 24, Part 1.8 of the Health and Safety Code (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 34161-34169.5) is denied. The request for a stay of chapter 6, Statutes 2011, First Extraordinary Session (Assembly Bill No. 27 X1)} is granted, except that the request to stay Health and Safety Code section 34194, subdivision (b)(2) is denied. Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance, John Chiang, Controller of the State of California, and Patrick O’ Connell, Auditor-Controller of the - County of Alameda, are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSEbefore this court, when the above matter is called on calendar, why the relief sought by petitioners should not be granted, The return is to be served and filed by respondents on or before September 9, 2011. A reply may be served and filed by petitioners on or before September 23, 2011. Any application to file an amicus curiae brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, -may be served and filed on or before September 30, 2011. Any reply to an amicus brief may be served and filed on or before October 7, 2011, The parties are directed to address, in the return and reply, the following questions: Assuming solely for the sake of argumentthat the court’s decision upholds both statutes and dissolves the existing stay, what effect would the stay have on the statutory dates for compliance, including those for enactment of an ordinance (Health & Saf. Code, § 34193, subd. (a)) and paymentof the remittance amount (id., § 34194, subd. (d))? Tf it becomes necessary to postpone the statutory compliance dates, what should the new dates be? 08/17/2011 12:36 FAX ify 0003/0003 The court does not contemplate extending any time set out above. The briefing schedule is designedto facilitate oral argument as early as possible in 2011, anda decision before January 15, 2012. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the court intends that Assembly Bills No, 26 X1 and 27 X1 will, if upheld, be implemented with as little delay as possible. Kennard, J., is of the opinion a stay should not be issued. Cantil-Sakauve ChiefJustice Kennard Associate Justice Baxter Associate Justice Werdegar Associate Justice Chin Associate Justice Corrigan Assaciale Justice Associate Justice CM-015 |DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: STATE OF CALIFORNIA,et al. 34-201 1-80000952-CU-WM-GD PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: CITY OF CERRITOS,etal. CASE NUMBER: PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL NOTICE OF RELATED CASE (NOTE: You cannotserve the Notice of Related Case if you are a party in the action. The person whoservedthe notice must complete this proof of service. The notice must be served on all known parties in each related action or proceeding.) 1. 3. | am at least 18 years old and nota party to this action. | am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took place, and my residence or business addressis (specify): 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000, San Francisco, CA 94102 | served a copy of the Notice of Related Case by enclosingit in a sealed envelope with first-class postagefully prepaid and (check one): a. [_] deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service. b. placed the sealed envelopefor collection and processing for mailing, following this business's usual practices, with which | am readily familiar. On the same day correspondenceis placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service. The Notice of Related Case was mailed: a. on (date): September 27, 2011 b. from (city and state): San Francisco, California The envelope was addressed and mailed asfollows: a. Nameof person served: c. Nameof person served: (See attached service list) Street address: Street address: City: City: State and zip code: State and zip code: b. Name of person served: d. Nameof person served: Street address: Street address: City: City: State and zip code: State and zip code: [~] Namesand addressesof additional persons served are attached. (You may use form POS-030(P).) | declare under penalty of perjury underthe laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: September 27, 2011 J. Wong » J Lior (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATUREOF DECLARANT) CM-015 [Rev. July 1, 2007] NOTICE OF RELATED CASE Page 3 of 3 SERVICE LIST RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP Jeffrey M. Oderman, Esq. Dan Slater, Esq. Mark J. Austin, Esq. William H. Thrke, Esq. Megan Garibaldi, Esq. 611 Anton Boulevard, 14000 Costa Mesa CA 92626-1931 Steven L. Mayer Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4024 Jennifer Rockwell Chief Counsel Department of Finance 915 "L" Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Claude Kolm Deputy County Counsel Alameda County Counsel's Office 1221 Oak Street, Room 450 Oakland, CA 94612-4296 Brian E. Washington Alameda County Counsel's Office 1221 Oak Street, Room 450 Oakland, CA 94612-4296 Richard J. Chivaro Chief Counsel State Controller's Office P.O. Box 942850 Sacramento, CA 94250 Lizanne Reynolds Deputy County Counsel Santa Clara County Counsel's Office 70 West HeddingStreet, 9th Floor East Wing San Jose, CA 95125 DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL Case Name: California Redevelopment Association, et al. v. Matosantos,et al. No.: $194861 I declare: I am employedin the Office of the Attorney General, whichis the office of a memberof the California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. | am 18 years of age or older and not a partyto this matter. | am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondenceplaced in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. On September28, 2011, I served the attached NOTICE OF RELATED CASEbyplacing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General at 455 Golden Gate Avenue,Suite 11000, San Francisco, CA 94102-7004, addressed as follows: Steven L. Mayer Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 9411]-4024 (Attorneys for Petitioners) Jennifer Rockwell Chief Counsel Department of Finance 915 "L"Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Claude Kolm Deputy County Counsel Alameda County Counsel's Office 1221 Oak Street, Room 450 Oakland, CA 94612-4296 Brian E. Washington Alameda County Counsel's Office 1221 Oak Street, Room 450 Oakland, CA 94612-4296 Richard J. Chivaro Chief Counsel State Controller's Office P.O. Box 942850 Sacramento, CA 94250 Lizanne Reynolds Deputy County Counsel Santa Clara County Counsel's Office 70 West HeddingStreet, 9th Floor East Wing San Jose, CA 95125 RUTAN &TUCKER, LLP | The Honorable Lloyd G. Connelly Jeffrey M. Oderman, Esq. Sacramento County Superior Court DanSlater, Esq. Gordon D. Schaber Downtown Courthouse Mark J. Austin, Esq. 720 Ninth Street William H.Ihrke, Esq. Department 33 Megan Garibaldi, Esq. Sacramento, CA 95814 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 14000 Costa Mesa CA 92626-1931 I declare under penalty of perjury underthe laws of the State of California the foregoingis true and correct and that this declaration was executed on September 28, 2011, at San Francisco, California. Janet Wong J bio} Declarant Sighature SA2011101911 2053 1547.doc