FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP JOHN A. O’MALLEY (BAR NO. … › tools › assets › files › 0568.pdf11. Petitioner and plaintiff IVAN TORRES was a petitioner and plaintiff in the Limón

- 1 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP JOHN A. O’MALLEY (BAR NO. 101181) TARIFA B. LADDON (BAR NO. 240419) AK BENNETT (BAR NO. PENDING) 555 South Flower Street Forty-First Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 892-9200 Facsimile: (213) 892-9494 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

CALIFORNIA AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAW PROJECTof THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT MICHAEL F. RAWSON (BAR NO. 95868) CRAIG CASTELLANET (BAR NO. 176054) [email protected] [email protected] 449 15th Street, Suite 301 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 891-9794 Facsimile: (510) 891-9727

PUBLIC COUNSEL LAW CENTER SHASHI HANUMAN (BAR NO. 198522) NISHA N. VYAS (BAR NO. 228922) ADAM COWING (BAR NO. 280135) [email protected] [email protected] 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, California 90005 Telephone: (213) 385-2977 Facsimile: (213) 385-9089

Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs Marina Limón, Alfredo Cordero, Celia Gonzalez, Jose Sanchez, Ana Rose Olea, Elidia Gonzalez, Ivan Torres, Javier Ibarra, and Kennedy Commission

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO MARINA LIMÓN, ALFREDO CORDERO, CELIA GONZALEZ, JOSE SANCHEZ, ANA ROSE OLEA, ELIDIA GONZALEZ, IVAN TORRES, and JAVIER IBARRA, as individuals and as taxpayers; KENNEDY COMMISSION, a nonprofit corporation, Petitioners and Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE; MICHAEL COHEN, in his official capacity as Director of the State of California Department of Finance; JAN E. GRIMES, in her official capacity as the Auditor-Controller of Orange County; and DOES 1-100, Respondents and Defendants.

Case No. Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [Cal. Code of Civ. P. § 1085 and § 1060] [Caption continued on next page.]



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

CITY OF GARDEN GROVE AS SUCCESSOR TO THE GARDEN GROVE AGENCY FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; GARDEN GROVE HOUSING AUTHORITY AS HOUSING SUCCESSOR TO THE GARDEN GROVE AGENCY FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; and DOES 101-200, Real Parties in Interest



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

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT:

This is an action to require that the State of California cease interference with a duly

entered Superior Court judgment resolving the rights of low-income households to receive

relocation assistance and replacement housing owed to them after being displaced from their

homes by government redevelopment activity. Petitioners and plaintiffs Marina Limón, Alfredo

Cordero, Celia Gonzalez, Jose Sanchez, Ana Rosa Olea, Elidia Gonzalez, Ivan Torres, Javier

Ibarra, and the Kennedy Commission (collectively, “Petitioners”) respectfully petition this Court

for a peremptory writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, for

declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1060, and for

attorneys’ fees (without limitation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5).

Petitioners, by this verified petition and complaint, allege as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This case arises from defendant and respondent California Department of

Finance’s (“Department”) improper denial of redevelopment funds to the City of Garden Grove.

The denial of these funds will cause irreparable harm to the Petitioners, all low-income residents

of Garden Grove who were forced to leave their homes and community at the Travel Country

Recreational Vehicle Park (“Park”), a mobile home park in Garden Grove, that was demolished to

make way for the development of a waterpark and hotel. To mitigate the harm caused to such

residents, California law required the Garden Grove Agency for Community Development

(“Agency”) to provide relocation assistance funds to the Petitioners and to create new affordable

housing units to replace those lost to development.

2. Petitioners were forced to engage in extensive litigation to enforce their statutory

rights to relocation assistance and affordable replacement housing due under law following their

displacement from the Park. The relocation payments that the Department has now denied, and

that are the subject of this action, are court-ordered obligations resulting from the judgment

entered by the Orange County Superior Court in Marina Limón et al. v. Garden Grove Agency for

Community Development et al. (O.C. Super. Ct., 2009, Case No. 30-2009-00291597) (“the Limón

action”). Relocation assistance is required by the California Relocation Assistance Act



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

(“CRAA”), Government Code sections 7260 et seq. The Limón judgment (“Judgment,”

incorporated by reference and attached hereto as Exhibit A) also required, in addition to the

relocation, the provision of funds to create replacement affordable housing units (“Replacement

Units”) required by the Community Redevelopment Law (“CRL”), Health and Safety Code

sections 33000 et seq. The funding for these Replacement Units is scheduled to come on line in

2015 and 2016.

3. The Agency was required to, in essence, petition the Department to release the

funds necessary to comply with its obligations under the Judgment because of certain provisions

in the “Dissolution Act,” California Assembly Bill No. X1 26 (2011-2012 1st Ex. Sess.) as

amended by California Assembly Bill No. 1484 (2011-2012 Regular Sess.). In the Dissolution

Act, the California Legislature dissolved redevelopment agencies and created a mechanism for

such agencies to satisfy obligations already incurred, including financial obligations. The

Department refused to fulfill its legal obligation under the Dissolution Act when it denied the

Successor Agency the funds that are due to the Petitioners in January 2015, erring as a matter of

law and depriving the Petitioners of the entitlements they fought hard to secure.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. Jurisdiction and venue in this Court are proper, pursuant to Health and Safety

Code section 34168,1 which provides that an action challenging acts taken or acts to be performed

under the Dissolution Act shall be brought in the Superior Court of the County of Sacramento.

III. PARTIES

5. Petitioner and plaintiff MARINA LIMÓN was a petitioner and plaintiff in the

Limón action, and is at all times mentioned herein owed performance of the terms of the judgment

in that case. She was a resident of the Park until it was demolished. She paid taxes in the 12

months preceding the filing of this lawsuit. She has a direct and beneficial interest in the

respondents and defendants complying with the terms of the Dissolution Act and the United

States and California Constitutions. She brings this case individually and as a taxpayer pursuant

to Code of Civil Procedure section 526a. 1 All further statutory citations are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise noted.



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

6. Petitioner and plaintiff ALFREDO CORDERO was a petitioner and plaintiff in the


in that case. He was a resident of the Park until it was demolished. He paid taxes in the 12

months preceding the filing of this lawsuit. He has a direct and beneficial interest in the


States and California Constitutions. He brings this case individually and as a taxpayer pursuant to

Code of Civil Procedure section 526a.

7. Petitioner and plaintiff CELIA GONZALEZ was a petitioner and plaintiff in the






to Code of Civil Procedure section 526a.

8. Petitioner and plaintiff JOSE SANCHEZ was a petitioner and plaintiff in the







9. Petitioner and plaintiff ANA ROSA OLEA was a petitioner and plaintiff in the









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

10. Petitioner and plaintiff ELIDIA GONZALEZ was a petitioner and plaintiff in the







11. Petitioner and plaintiff IVAN TORRES was a petitioner and plaintiff in the Limón

action, and is at all times mentioned herein owed performance of the terms of the judgment in that

case. He was a resident of the Park until it was demolished. He paid taxes in the 12 months

preceding the filing of this lawsuit. He has a direct and beneficial interest in the respondents and

defendants complying with the terms of the Dissolution Act and the United States and California

Constitutions. He brings this case individually and as a taxpayer pursuant to Code of Civil

Procedure section 526a.

12. Petitioner and plaintiff JAVIER IBARRA was a petitioner and plaintiff in the







13. Petitioner KENNEDY COMMISSION was a petitioner and plaintiff in the Limón

action, and is at all times mentioned herein owed performance of the terms of the judgment in that

case. The Kennedy Commission is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the state

of California and doing business in Orange County. Its mission is to work for systemic change

resulting in the production of affordable homes for Orange County's extremely low-income

families. The members and staff of the Kennedy Commission have expended substantial time,

efforts, and resources to advocate for affordable housing in the City of Garden Grove. The



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

Kennedy Commission has had its mission frustrated by the actions of the Agency, the City, and

the City Council to remove or destroy affordable housing in Garden Grove. The Kennedy

Commission experiences further diversion of resources and frustration of mission by Respondents

in the present action.

14. Respondent and defendant Department is and at all times mentioned herein was an

agency of the State of California. The Department is responsible for performing certain duties

pursuant to the Dissolution Act. Pursuant to section 34177, subdivisions (l) and (m), and section

34179, subdivision (h), the Department has been charged with reviewing, on behalf of the State,

each successor agency’s listing of its enforceable obligations. The Department must approve and

authorize use of former redevelopment agency funds by successor agencies to carry out

enforceable obligations. (§§ 34174(a), 34175(a), 34187(a)(2).)

15. Respondent and defendant MICHAEL COHEN is the Director of the Department,

an agency of the State of California, and is named herein in his official capacity.

16. Respondent and defendant JAN E. GRIMES is named in her official capacity as

the Auditor-Controller of Orange County.

17. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate or otherwise, of

respondents and defendants 1-100 are unknown to petitioners at this time and these parties are

therefore sued under fictitious names. Petitioners will seek leave to amend this petition and

complaint to insert the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named respondents and

defendants when those names and capacities have been ascertained. Petitioners are informed and

believe, and on that basis allege, that each of the respondents and defendants named as DOES 1-

100 is legally responsible in some manner for the actions challenged herein and therefore should

be bound by the relief sought by this petition and complaint.

18. Real party in interest CITY OF GARDEN GROVE AS SUCCESSOR TO THE

GARDEN GROVE AGENCY FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, the Successor Agency,

under section 34173, subdivision (a), is and was at all times mentioned herein, the successor

agency to the former Garden Grove Redevelopment Agency. Pursuant to section 34173,



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

subdivision (g), the Successor Agency is a separate public entity from the City and can sue and be

sued in its own name.

19. Real party in interest GARDEN GROVE HOUSING AUTHORITY AS

HOUSING SUCCESSOR TO THE GARDEN GROVE AGENCY FOR COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT (“Housing Authority” or “Housing Successor”), is a public agency created

pursuant to section 34200 et seq. The Housing Authority, pursuant to section 34176, subdivision

(a) has assumed all rights, powers, assets, duties, and obligations associated with the housing

activities of the former Garden Grove Agency for Community Development, and is, and at all

times mentioned herein was, the Housing Successor to the former Garden Grove Agency for

Community Development.

20. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate or otherwise, of real

parties in interest 101-200 are unknown to petitioners at this time and these parties are therefore

sued under fictitious names. Petitioners will seek leave to amend this petition and complaint to

insert the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named real parties in interest when those

names and capacities have been ascertained. Petitioners are informed and believe, and on that

basis allege, that each of the real parties in interest named as DOES 101-200 is legally responsible

in some manner for the actions challenged herein and therefore should be bound by the relief

sought by this petition and complaint.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. The Garden Grove Agency for Community Development Displaced Low

Income Residents of a Mobile Home Community in Order to Develop a

Waterpark and Hotel.

21. Petitioners are all low-income individuals who are former residents of the Park.

Petitioners lived at the Park for an average of 11 years. They raised children in the Park, attended

large community gatherings at the Park, belonged to neighborhood churches, saw nearby doctors,

and shopped at nearby stores. Although the Petitioners homes at the Park were considered

“mobile” homes, most of their homes were old and not in operating condition, making the Park

their permanent residency.



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

22. In 2003, the Agency began negotiations to acquire the Park with the long-term

goal of selling the property to a developer who planned to replace the Park community with a

hotel and waterpark. At the time the Agency began these negotiations, the Park was at nearly full

capacity with around 172 families in residence.

23. A condition of the Agency’s agreement to buy the Park required that the Park’s

owner deliver the premises to the Agency unoccupied. The owners tried to force families out by

issuing termination notices and raising their rents twice. Despite these attempts to force families

out of the Park, the seller was unable to deliver the Park vacant, and in 2005, the Agency assumed

ownership. The Agency ceased renting any vacant homes to new tenants and continued efforts to

vacate the Park.

24. In October 2007, the Agency began negotiations with a developer and together

with Garden Grove, the Agency authorized a Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”)

in May 2009 to move forward with the construction of the hotel and waterpark. The DDA

required that the Agency and Garden Grove relocate all Park residents.

B. In Displacing the Low Income Residents, the Agency Violated California’s

Affordable Housing Laws by Failing to Properly Pay Relocation Assistance

Benefits and to Provide Replacement Affordable Housing.

25. The CRAA and the CRL represent a comprehensive set of laws designed to ensure

that people that are displaced by redevelopment activities are not made worse off – that they are

made “whole”, e.g. paid relocation assistance and provided comparable replacement housing to

make up for the loss of their homes. Accordingly, the CRAA requires the Agency to prepare a

relocation plan as soon as possible after initiating negotiations to acquire property, and prior to

proceeding with any phase of a project that will displace residents, such as acquiring new

property for future projects. (Gov. Code, §§ 7260 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 25, §§ 6008(n),

6038, subd. (a).) The statute required the Agency to pay the Petitioners relocation amounts to

cover the increased cost of rent for a period of 42 months after displacement (Cal. Code Regs.,

tit. 25, § 6104, subd. (d).)



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

26. Without this relocation assistance, the Petitioners would not have been able to find

housing before the deadline to vacate the Park because there was no available vacant housing in

the community priced at the same rate the Petitioners were paying to live at the Park.

27. In addition, the Community Redevelopment Law (“CRL”) requires the Agency to

adopt a replacement plan for new housing units 30 days prior to executing an agreement (such as

the DDA) that would destroy or remove dwelling units from the low income housing market. (§§

33413, subd. (a); 33413.5.) The Agency entered into the 2009 DDA without adopting the

replacement housing plan required by law.

C. The Low Income Petitioners Litigated Against the City and Agency for Years

to Secure the Benefits Owed to the Garden Grove Community.

28. On August 10, 2009, Petitioners, along with other parties, filed a Complaint for

Declarative and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Mandate against the Agency and

Garden Grove in the Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00291597. The

Complaint requested, among other things, that the Court direct the Agency and Garden Grove to

adopt a DDA that complied with the law.

29. The Agency, in response to the filing of the Limón action, attempted to appear in

compliance with the law but each effort fell short of making Petitioners whole as required by the

CRAA and CRL. For example, after the Petitioners filed the 2009 Complaint, the Agency hastily

prepared a Replacement Housing Plan and negotiated a new, amended DDA in April 2010 once it

had planned for replacement housing. However, despite the fact that the waterpark hotel

development would eliminate 172 dwelling units that housed low-income persons or families at

the Park, the Agency’s Replacement Housing Plan proposed to replace only 42 of the Park’s

dwelling units, leaving the amended the Plan deficient under the CRAA and CRL. In response,

the Petitioners had to amend their initial Complaint to demand that the Agency replace all of the

dwelling units slated to be destroyed by the waterpark hotel project. Otherwise, most—if not

all—of the Petitioners would still be left without adequate, affordable replacement housing once

the Park was destroyed.



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

30. In another attempt to appear to comply with the law, the Agency issued 90-Day

Notices to Vacate and 90-Day Notices of Termination of Tenancy to residents of the Park, prior

to the Petitioners’ trial date on the Limón action, dated October 24, 2011. As a result, all of the

remaining residents of the Park were forced from their homes by February 2012.

D. The Low-Income Petitioners Obtained a Judgment Obligating the Agency to

Pay Relocation Assistance Benefits and Provide Replacement Affordable

Housing as Required by Law.

31. After years of litigation, and numerous days of judicially-supervised mediations,

the Petitioners’ lawsuit resulted in the Judgment, entered in the Orange County Superior Court on

May 8, 2014), which required the Agency (and the Successor Agency, created after the

dissolution of redevelopment agencies, discussed in subsection E, below) to provide the

remaining relocation assistance funds due to Petitioners, to produce a combined total of 80

affordable Replacement Units with Petitioners having priority to live in such units, and pay

Petitioners’ attorneys’ fees resulting from the litigation.

E. The Agency Took the Proper Steps to Ensure that the Department of Finance

Would, as Required by Law, Bless the Agency’s Ability to Meet its

Obligations Under the Judgment.

1. The effect of the Legislature’s dissolution of redevelopment agencies in

2012.

32. The Legislature dissolved California redevelopment agencies on February 1, 2012

by statute, known as the Dissolution Act. (§ 34172; See California Redevelopment Ass’n v.

Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal. 4th 231.)

33. Under the terms of the Dissolution Act, “the county, city, or city and county that

authorized the creation of each redevelopment agency” became the “successor agency” to that

redevelopment agency, unless the designated successor entity elected not to serve as the successor

agency. (§§ 34171, subd. (j); 34173, subd. (a), (d).) Under the Dissolution Act, litigation

involving a redevelopment agency was “automatically” transferred to the successor agency. (§



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

34173, subd. (g).) In February 2012, the Garden Grove City Council designated Garden Grove as

the Successor Agency to the dissolved Agency. (City of Garden Grove Res. No. 1-12.)

2. The Successor Agency complied with the Dissolution Act when it

submitted its request for funds to the Department in order to comply

with the terms of the Judgment.

34. The goal of the Dissolution Act was to stop redevelopment agencies from

incurring new debts, limit what types of existing projects and other obligations the successor

agencies would make payments on in the future, and ensure that all enforceable obligations of the

agencies are performed. To accomplish this goal, the Dissolution Act created the Recognized

Obligation Payments Schedule (“ROPS”) mechanism for funding enforceable obligations. Every

six months, a successor agency must list all required payments of enforceable obligations due

during the upcoming six-month period on a ROPS, which the Successor Agency submits to the its

oversight board for approval. (§§ 34171, subd. (h); 34177, subd. (l).) Oversight boards supervise

the activities of successor agencies and “have fiduciary responsibilities to holders of enforceable

obligations,” such as the Petitioners in this case. (§ 34179, subd. (i).) If the ROPS is approved,

the successor agencies then submit the list of required payments to the Department and the

County Auditor-Controller. (§ 34177, subd. (l)-(m).)

35. The Dissolution Act transferred to the successor agencies “enforceable

obligations” incurred by redevelopment agencies prior to their dissolution, making the successor

agencies now legally responsible for their satisfaction. (§ 34177, subd. (a) & (c).) “Enforceable

obligations” include “obligations imposed by state law,” “[j]udgments or settlements entered by a

competent court of law,” and “[a]ny legally binding and enforceable agreement or contract that is

not otherwise void as violating the debt limit or public policy.” (§ 34171, subd. (d)(1)(C)-(E))

(emphasis added.)

36. The Dissolution Act requires the County Auditor-Controller to create a

Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (“RPTTF”) for the property tax revenues related to each

former redevelopment agency. (§ 34170.5, subd. (b).) If the Department determines that an item

on a successor agency’s ROPS is an enforceable obligation, the successor agency is authorized



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

either to pay the obligation out of available funds or to receive monies from the RPTTF to pay the

obligation. (§ 34177, subd. (l).) Conversely, if the Department determines that an item on a

successor agency’s ROPS is not an enforceable obligation, the County Auditor-Controller

disburses the amounts for that item from the RPTTF to local taxing entities instead. (§§ 34177,

subd. (d); 34183, subd. (a).)

37. In addition to submitting to the Department the ROPS including the DDA funds

and the monies owed under the Judgment for approval, the Successor Agency also petitioned the

Department to issue written confirmation that the 2010 DDA, which includes funds for

Petitioners’ relocation, was an enforceable obligation for an “irrevocable commitment of property

tax revenue” under the Dissolution Act. (§ 34177.5(i).) On February 26, 2013, the Department

issued a determination letter approving the DDA, listed as “Item 19” on the ROPS, as a “final and

conclusive enforceable obligation” (emphasis added). Id.

F. Despite Clear Law Requiring the Department of Finance to Recognize the

Judgment as Enforceable, it Subsequently Denied the Obligation and

Prevented the Successor Agency from Complying With the Terms of the

Judgment.

38. Because the Judgment is unquestionably an enforceable obligation as defined in

the Dissolution Act (§ 34171, subd. (d)), the Successor Agency listed the remaining relocation

assistance payments as obligations in its October 2014 submission to the Department. The

balance of the Judgment award for the construction of the Replacement Units is scheduled for

submission on the 2015 and 2016 ROPS.

39. In order to comply with the ROPS deadlines in the Judgment, on information and

belief, on or before September 24, 2014, the Successor Agency proposed to the Garden Grove

Oversight Board the ROPS for the six-month period from January 1 through June 30, 2014

(ROPS 14-15B). “Item 40” on ROPS 14-15B lists a total outstanding debt of $1,935,540 for the

“Limon Law Suit [sic] Settlement,” which is described as the “Settlement of Former Agency

Lawsuit Associated with Item 19.”



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

40. Item 19 is described as the “Waterpark Hotel DDA.” Consistent with the terms of

the Judgment, Item 40 lists a current obligation $936,540.00 of the total outstanding debt of

$1,935,540 for the remaining relocation assistance still due to Petitioners as well as related

attorneys’ fees. The Successor Agency submitted notes along with ROPS 14-15B, stating that the

amounts due in ROPS periods 2015–2016 are primarily for the construction of affordable

Replacement Units required by the Judgment.

41. Upon information and belief, on or before September 24, 2014, the Oversight

Board approved the ROPS 14-15B. Then, on September 24, 2014, the Successor Agency

submitted its Oversight Board-approved ROPS 14-15B to the Department and the County

Auditor-Controller for review, consistent with the requirements of the Dissolution Act.

42. On November 7, 2014, the Department issued its determination on the Successor

Agency’s ROPS 14-15B. The Department denied payment of the entire amount in Item 40. In

rejecting Item 40, the Department stated:

Limon Law Suit settlement totaling $1,936,540 is not allowed. Pursuant to HSC 34178, the successor agency can only enter into agreements upon obtaining the approval of its oversight board approval [sic]. However, the April 2014 settlement agreement was not approved by the Agency’s Oversight Board. Therefore, this line item is not an enforceable obligation and is not eligible for Redevelopment tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) funding.

43. The Department’s conclusion is incorrect. On information and belief, the

Oversight Board did not object to Item 40, or any other item, when it approved ROPS 14-15B.

44. Specifically, on November 12, 2014, the Oversight Board passed Resolution No.

37-14, approving the terms of the Judgment. In so doing, the Oversight Board cited its “fiduciary

responsibilities to holders of enforceable obligations and the affected taxing entities that benefit

from distributions of property tax and other revenues pursuant to Section 34188” of the

Dissolution Act. The Oversight Board also noted the Judgment specifically states the obligations

therein belong to the Agency. The Oversight Board concluded:

“thus, the Successor Agency’s liability for amounts owed under the Judgment [is] limited to funding provided through the RPTTF and ROPS process and the value of assets received by the successor Agency and [. . .] the Successor Agency is required to list the obligations of the Judgment on all ROPS until all obligations are satisfied.”



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

(City of Garden Grove Oversight Board Resolution No. 37-14.)

45. Upon information and belief, on November 12, 2014, pursuant to section 34177,

subdivision (m) of the Dissolution Act, the Successor Agency requested to meet and confer with

the Department to contest the Department’s denial of the enforceability of the Judgment. Upon

information and belief, the Successor Agency and the Department met and conferred on or about

November 18, 2014. Neither Petitioners nor their counsel were informed of the Departments’

initial determination, nor were they informed of the Successor Agency’s request to meet and

confer.

46. On November 26, 2014, counsel for Petitioners requested to meet and confer with

the Department. Petitioners also provided detailed written information on the Department’s

errors in denying the terms of the Judgment as enforceable obligations. The Department declined

to meet and confer with Petitioners.

47. Based on the Department’s determination for ROPS 14-15B, the County Auditor-

Controller is directed to release to other taxing entities the funds that should have instead been

disbursed to the Successor Agency for satisfaction of the Judgment, on or before January 2, 2015.

(§ 34183, subd.(a).)

G. Absent the Injunctive and Other Relief Sought Herein, the Low Income

Petitioners Face Serious Irreparable Injury.

48. Pursuant to Department’s erroneous determination that the Judgment is not an

enforceable obligation under the Dissolution Act, the County Auditor-Controller will imminently

disburse the funds associated with Item 40, the Judgment, to the local taxing entities in January

2015, instead of to the Successor Agency to satisfy its obligations to Petitioners. (§ 34183(a).)

49. Petitioners seek a writ of mandate, and/or preliminary and permanent injunctive

relief, and declaratory relief, requiring the Department to comply with California law and to

reverse its determination that the Judgment obligations are not enforceable obligations under

section 34171, subdivision (d). Petitioners also ask the Court to direct the Department to

authorize the payments necessary for the Successor Agency to meet its outstanding, court-ordered

obligations to the Petitioners outlined in the Judgment.



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

50. Petitioners, who are low-income individuals, were displaced from their homes and

their community at the Park more than 34 months ago. The Petitioners who owned their mobile

homes lost the significant investments they made on those homes. Petitioners lost their health

care providers, schools, churches, neighbors and friends.

51. Many of the Petitioners have suffered extreme amounts of stress related to their

housing insecurity, their displacement from the Park, and the destruction of their community. In

some cases, the Petitioners have suffered serious physical injury that they believe to be related to

the stress caused by the Agency’s actions and the Department’s denial of the Successor Agency’s

remaining obligations.

52. Petitioners’ households expend significantly more of their limited incomes for

housing than they did at the Park. Most of the Petitioners are struggling to make rent payments to

stay in their current homes at market rate rents. They have exhausted (or nearly exhausted) the

partial relocation assistance they were provided at the time of displacement. Petitioners are

relying on the additional relocation assistance owed to them under California law, the DDA, and

the Judgment, in order to continue to pay rent and to make needed safety and accessibility

improvements to their housing of last resort.

53. Furthermore, as the Department has denied line Item 40, the Successor Agency

and Garden Grove will not be able to proceed with developing the necessary Replacement Units

required by the Judgment, foreclosing the Petitioners ability to secure the affordable housing

reserved for them under the law.

54. Individual Petitioners face real, tangible harm from the Department’s denial,

which has the practical effect of vacating the Judgment they obtained against the Agency for its

violation of their rights as individuals displaced by redevelopment agency action.



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

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Writ of Mandate Compelling Department to Approve Item 40 on the ROPS 14-15B

(Health & Saf. Code, § 34171, subd. (d); Code Civ. Proc., § 1085)

By All Petitioners Against All Respondents

55. Petitioners re-allege and incorporate by reference each allegation set forth in

paragraphs 1 through 54 above as though fully set forth herein.

56. On or about September 24, 2014, the Successor Agency submitted ROPS 14-15B,

approved by its oversight board, to the Department and the County Auditor-Controller.

57. Line Item 40 on the ROPS 14-15B, requesting $1,936.540 for replacement

dwelling units, relocation assistance, and attorneys’ fees required to fulfill the Successor

Agency’s obligations as required by the Judgment, is an enforceable obligation within the

meaning of section 34171, subdivision (d)(1). The relocation assistance, replacement housing,

and attorneys’ fees are required by a settlement and judgment entered by a competent court of law

(§ 34171, subd. (d)(1)(D)), and by a “legally binding and enforceable agreement or contract that

is not otherwise void as violating the debt limit or public policy” (§ 34171, subd. (d)(1)(E)). The

construction of the units is also an “obligation[ ] imposed by state law” (§ 34171, subd.

(d)(1)(C)), as it is required by the replacement obligations codified in section 33413.

58. On or about November 7, 2014, the Department issued its determination that line

Item 40 on the ROPS 14-15B did not represent an enforceable obligation and the requested funds

could not be paid from property tax revenue.

59. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that respondents will

continue to deny the amounts requested in ROPS 14-15B line Item 40 on future ROPS as an

enforceable obligation and will not approve the use of property tax revenues to pay this

enforceable obligation.

60. Petitioners seek a writ of mandate to: (a) compel respondents to comply

immediately with their mandatory statutory duties to fund the obligations in the ROPS and to

recognize the Judgment, the Replacement Units, relocation assistance, and attorneys’ fees as

enforceable obligations; (b) prohibit the Department from disapproving the expenditure of funds



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

for the purposes identified on line Item 40 of ROPS 14-15B; and (c) prohibit the County Auditor-

Controller from disbursing the funds related the purposes identified on line 40 of ROPS 14-15B

to the local taxing entities instead of to petitioners and their counsel.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Writ of Mandate Preventing the Department From Interfering With the Agency’s

Contractual Obligations

(U.S. Const. Art. I, § 10; Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 9; Code Civ. Proc., § 1085)

By All Petitioners Against Respondents Department and Cohen



62. The Department’s denial of line Item 40 on the Successor Agency’s ROPS 14-15B

constitutes a refusal to acknowledge that the Judgment created enforceable obligations, as defined

by section 34171, subdivision (d). The Department’s denial of the funds requested in line Item 40

impairs the ability of the Successor Agency to fulfill its contractual obligations, including the

obligation to provide replacement housing to Petitioners, relocation assistance, and payment of

their attorneys’ fees resulting from the Limón action.

63. The Department’s denial of the ROPS 14-15B for the purposes identified in line

Item 40 thus violates the United States and California Constitutions’ prohibitions against the

impairment of contracts. (U.S. Const. art I, § 10; Calif. Const. art. I, § 9.)

64. Petitioners have a clear, present and direct beneficial interest in, and right to,

respondents’ performance of their legal duty to ensure that the Successor Agency and the

Housing Successor can comply with their contractual obligations pursuant to the Judgment.

65. Petitioners seek a writ of mandate to compel respondents to immediately comply

with their mandatory constitutional and statutory duties and to refrain from violating the

prohibitions as set forth herein.



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

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Writ of Mandate Preventing an Executive Department from Interfering With Judicial

Functions

(Cal. Const. art. III, § 3; Code Civ. Proc., § 1085)




67. The Department’s refusal to acknowledge the Judgment as an enforceable

obligation prevents the Successor Agency from taking actions and making payments required by

a judgment from a competent court of law. Thus the executive branch of the California

government, the Department, is depriving the Superior Court from retaining jurisdiction over the

Judgment.

68. Petitioners have a clear, present and direct beneficial interest in, and right to,

respondents’ performance of their legal duty to ensure that the Successor Agency can comply

with the Superior Court’s judgment in the Limón action, and that the Superior Court can enforce

its own Judgment.

69. Petitioners seek a writ of mandate to compel respondents to immediately comply

with their mandatory constitutional and statutory duties and to refrain from violating the

prohibitions set forth herein.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 526, 1060)




71. An actual controversy exists between Petitioners and respondents concerning their

rights and duties associated with the Dissolution Act and the Judgment. Petitioners contend that

the duties described in ROPS 14-15B line Item 40 are enforceable obligations. Accordingly, the



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

Successor Agency is required to list these obligations on the ROPS. The Department is required

to approve transfers of the amounts set forth in line Item 40 to the RPTTF in satisfaction of the

obligations set forth in Item 40. The Department is required to approve transfer of the amount set

forth in line Item 40 to the Successor Agency and permit its expenditure to satisfy the obligation

set in line Item 40. Petitioners are informed and believe that respondents dispute this contention

as to the Judgment

72. Petitioners request a judicial determination that ROPS 14-15B Item 40 consists of

enforceable obligations; that the Department lacked authority to disallow the transfer to the

Successor Agency of the amount requested in ROPS 14-15B line Item 40; and that the

Department’s final decision disapproving transfer and payment of these amounts is null and void.

73. This determination is necessary and proper because otherwise the Department

requires the County Auditor-Controller to distribute amounts necessary to pay line Item 40 to the

local taxing entities, based on its contention that the terms of the Judgment are not enforceable

obligations.

74. As a result of the unlawful acts and omissions of the respondents as set forth

herein, Petitioners are suffering irreparable injury. The injuries they suffer are to their health and

well-being, to their familial, social and spiritual relations, and to their physical safety and thus are

not easily quantifiable or compensable. No money damages or other legal remedy could

adequately compensate Petitioners for the irreparable harm the respondents’ conduct has caused,

continues to cause, and threatens to cause—the domino effect of how housing instability leads to

homelessness, food insecurity, transportation and job insecurity, physical and emotional stress,

illness, and possibly even untimely death. Unless enjoined, the respondents will continue to

refuse to approve or permit the release of the required funds, which adversely impacts Petitioners.

75. As a direct and proximate result of the respondents’ acts and omissions alleged

above, Petitioners have and will continue to suffer from a lack of affordable housing due to the

former Agency’s failure to comply with the requirements of Redevelopment Law.

76. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law other than the relief

requested in this petition and complaint.



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

77. Petitioners are entitled to temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief

requiring the respondents to comply with their legal duties as alleged herein.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that the Court grant them the following relief:

I. A peremptory writ of mandate, and/or preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,

commanding the Department to comply with its mandatory, ministerial duty under

the Dissolution Act to:

A. Approve the payment of funds identified for the purposes of line Item 40 of

ROPS 14-15B;

B. Approve ROPS amounts necessary to fulfill all remaining enforceable

obligations in the Judgment; and

C. Refrain from distributing to the taxing entities the funds identified for the

purposes of line Item 40 of ROPS 14-15B.

II. A peremptory writ of mandate and/or preliminary and permanent injunctive relief

enjoining respondents from:

A. Prohibiting the transfer of funds necessary for the purposes identified in

line Item 40 on ROPS 14-15B;

B. Demanding the transfer of funds necessary to satisfy the purposes

identified in line Item 40 to the County Auditor-Controller for distribution

to the local taxing entities; and

C. Obstructing or impairing the contractual obligations of the Successor

Agency to fully comply with the terms of the Judgment.

III. A declaration that:

A. The Limón Judgment and Line Item 40 on ROPS 14-15B consist of

enforceable obligations pursuant to section 34171, subdivision (d).

B. With respect to the Department determinations:

1. The Dissolution Act defines the terms pursuant to which all

Department determinations must be made;



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

2. Each determination made by the Department must be based on

applicable statutory provisions of the Dissolution Act and

Redevelopment Law, as amended;

3. The Department may not interpret statutory provisions of the

Dissolution Act or use its ministerial powers otherwise to impede

the performance of contractual obligations of a successor agency or

housing successor formed in compliance with the Dissolution Act;

and,

4. The Department may not interpret statutory provisions of the

Dissolution Act or use its ministerial powers otherwise to impede

the powers of the judicial branch of the government.

C. Respondents’ failure to comply with their legal obligations set forth herein

impairs the contractual obligations of the Successor Agency and therefore

constitutes an unlawful violation of Article I, section 9 of the California

Constitution.

D. Respondents’ failure to comply with their legal obligations set forth herein

impairs the contractual obligations of the Successor Agency and therefore

constitutes an unlawful violation of Article I, section 10 of the U.S.

Constitution.

IV. An award to Petitioners/plaintiffs of their costs of suit.

V. An award to Petitioners/plaintiffs of their reasonable attorneys’ fees in this action;

and

VI. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Document1 - 1 -

EXHIBIT A

Documents

FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP JOHN A. O’MALLEY (BAR NO. … › tools › assets › files › 0568.pdf11. Petitioner and plaintiff IVAN TORRES was a petitioner and plaintiff in the Limón