CALIFORNIA (Western Division - Los Angeles) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:16-cv DMG-SK

Transcription

1 CM/ECF - California Central District Page of ACCO,(SKx,DISCOVERY,MJDAP_OUT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division - Los Angeles CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: :-cv dmg-sk Balubhai G. Patel et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al Assigned to: Judge Dolly M. Gee Referred to: Magistrate judge Steve Kim Cause: :8 Housing Discrimination Plaintiff Balubhai G. Patel Plaintiff Viranbhai Patel Plaintiff Plaintiff Tenants Date Filed: /0/0 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 0 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question represented by Frank A Weiser Frank A Weiser Law Offices 0 Wilshire Boulevard Suite Los Angeles, CA Fax: maimons@aol.com A TTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Frank A Weiser (See above for address A TTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Frank A Weiser (See above for address A TTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Defendant City of Los Angeles a municipal corporation Date. fil (CN/OoiL Submitted in P LUjLL Council File No: item Ng. _ sr k x rw\ Committee t\-.. LL t represented by Amy Brothers Los Angeles City Attorney City Hall East 00 North Main Street Roon 0 Los Angeles, CA Fax: amy.brothers@lacity.org LEAD ATTORNEY A TTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Patrick James Hagan Office of the City Attorney //0

2 CM/ECF - California Central District Page of 00 N. Main Street Room 0 Los Angeles, CA Fax: patrick.hagan@lacity.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Does -0 inclusive Date Filed /0/0 ; /0/0 /0/0 /0/0! /0/0 /0/0 /0/0 //0 0//0 j #! Docket Text i ; COMPLAINT Receipt No: Fee: $00, filed by Plaintiffs ; I Balubhai G. Patel, Plaintiff Tenants, Viranbhai Patel. (Attorney Frank A Weiser added to party Balubhai G. Patel(pty:pla, Attorney Frank A Weiser added to j i party Viranbhai Patel(pty:pla, Attorney Frank A Weiser added to party I s Plaintiff Tenants(pty:pla(Weiser, Frank (Entered: /0/0! i CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiffs Balubhai G. Patel, Viranbhai Patel, j Plaintiff Tenants. (Weiser, Frank (Entered: /0/0 j j f Initial DISCLOSURE of Notice of Interested Parties re Complaint (Attorney! j Civil Case Opening, X filed by Plaintiffs Balubhai G. Patel, Viranbhai Patel, j i Plaintiff Tenants (Weiser, Frank (Entered: /0/0 j ; Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case : Opening, l, Disclosure, Civil Cover Sheet (CV- filed by Plaintiffs Balubhai G. Patel, Viranbhai Patel, Plaintiff Tenants. (Weiser, Frank (Entered: i ; /0/0 NOTICE TO COUNSEL re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. This. : case has been randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. i (Attachments: # CV-C (esa (Entered: /0/0 l DAY Summons issued re Complaint X as to defendant City of Los Angeles. I (esa (Entered: /0/0 j NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening. The following error j j (s was found: Other error(s with document(s: The correct event for Notice of : Interested Parties is Certificate of Interested Parties. It was filed under the \ disclosure event. No further action is required regarding this item, (esa! j (Entered: /0/0 j i 8 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to City of Los ; i Angeles answer now due /0/0, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case j! Opening, X filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles.(Attorney Patrick James i Hagan added to party City of Los Angeles(pty:dft(Hagan, Patrick (Entered: i //0 j 9 ; REMINDER NOTICE re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. Each i l 0-l //0

3 (CM/ECF - California Central District Page of I i party must file form CV-C within the consent deadlines pursuant to L.R. - * ; I. Additionally, the parties are directed to L.R. -. Proof of Service. In any ; case in which only a magistrate judge is initially assigned, plaintiff must file a! j proof of service within 0 days of service of the summons and complaint as to j. each defendant, (afe (Entered: 0//0 0//0 0 i ELECTION REGARDING CONSENT to Proceed before a United States : Magistrate Judge Declined, in accordance with Title 8 Section c filed by j Defendant City of Los Angeles. The Defendant does not consent. (Hagan, j : Patrick (Entered: 0//0 : ; 0//0 H NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT of MJDAP case from Magistrate Judge Alka j! Sagar to Judge Dolly M. Gee for all further proceedings. Any discovery matters, j that may be referred to a Magistrate Judge are assigned to U.S. Magistrate i Judge Steve Kim. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee i Judges :-cv DMG(SKx. (m (Entered: 0//0 0//0 i MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS - TRANSFER OF CASE TO JUDGE! j I GEE by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Please take notice that this action has been i j I reassigned to the HONORABLE DOLLY M. GEE, United States District j i j Judge, pursuant to the Order re Transfer Pursuant to General Order -0 filed ' i on January, 0. Please substitute the initials DMG in place of the current I j initials, so that the case number will now read CV DMG (SKx. (iv I [ ((Entered; 0//0 I ; 0//0! INITIAL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Dolly M. ; Gee. (iv (Entered: 0//0 j : 0/0/0 j NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Complaint or Stay Action ; ;! filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on //0 at ; [ j 09:0 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # Declaration of Patrick j j j I Hagan, # Proposed Order (Hagan, Patrick (Entered: 0/0/0 j 0/0/0 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike portions of Complaint ; [ (Attorney Civil Case Opening, filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. j i! Motion set for hearing on //0 at 09:0 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee.! i (Attachments: # Declaration of Patrick Hagan, # Proposed Order (Hagan, i I Patrick (Entered: 0/0/0 I 0/09/0 ; FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants City of Los Angeles, j I j Does amending Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening, l JURY DEMAND, j ; filed by Plaintiffs Balubhai G. Patel, Plaintiff Tenants, Viranbhai Patel(Weiser, I! Frank (Entered: 0/09/0! 0//0 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT by Judge Dolly I, M. Gee: On February 9, 0, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint ; ("FAC" as a matter of course under Rule (a. See Fed. R. Civ. P. (a( (B ("A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within... j [ days after service of a motion under Rule (b...". In light of the foregoing, : Defendant motion to dismiss and motion to strike, filed on January 0, j 0, are DENIED as moot. The March, 0 hearing on that motion is i j VACATED. IT IS SO ORDERED, (kti (Entered: 0//0 //0

4 CM/ECF - California Central District Page of i 0//0 0//0 0//0 i 0/0/0! 0/0/0 0/0/0 0/0/0 0//0 j NOTICE TO PARTIES by U.S. Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. Effective, March j, 0, Judge Kim s courtroom will be COURTROOM on the rd floor, located at N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 900. All Court appearances shall be made in Courtroom of the Spring Street U.S,! i Courthouse. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY, (rrp TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 0//0 j NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Complaint or Stay Action : filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on //0 at j! 09:0 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # I Proposed Order. (Hagan, Patrick (Entered: 0//0 j 0 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Portions of Amended I Complaint/Petition filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. Motion set for I \ hearing on //0 at 09:0 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # } i Proposed Order (Hagan, Patrick (Entered: 0//0 j MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to! Dismiss Complaint or Stay Action Opposition to Motion to Dismiss First \ j Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support : j [ Thereof filed by Plaintiffs Balubhai G. Patel, Viranbhai Patel, Plaintiff Tenants. I j (Weiser, Frank (Entered: 0/0/0 I j MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to j Strike Portions of Amended Complaint/Petition 0 Opposition to Motion to : j Strike; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by I i Plaintiffs Balubhai G. Patel, Viranbhai Patel, Plaintiff Tenants. (Weiser, Frank, (Entered: 0/0/0 },! REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss j j Complaint or Stay Action filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. i i (Attachments: # I Request for Judicial Notice(Hagan, Patrick (Entered: t 0/0/0 REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike j Portions of Amended Complaint/Petition 0 filed by Defendant City of Los! ' : Angeles. (Hagan, Patrick (Entered: 0/0/0 j! ; (IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court finds that j j Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint or Stay Action l j i and Defendant's Motion to Strike 0 presently scheduled for hearing on March, 0, are appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ; I i (b; C.D. L.R. -. Accordingly, the motions are taken UNDER : j SUBMISSION and the hearing is vacated. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS! i NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY, (kti TEXT I i ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 0//0 I PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt 0/0/0 0:: //0

5 - CM/ECF - California Central District Page of PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages: Einstein:99:0 Docket Report Client Code: Search Criteria: : Cost: 0.0 :-CV DMG- ISKEnd date: //0 ; //0

6 Case : -cv dmg-sk Document Filed 0/09/ Page of PagelD#: 8 9 FRANK A. WEISER (S.B. #8980 Attorney at Law 0 Wilshire Blvd., # Los Angeles, California 9000 ( 8-9 (voice ( 8-8 (fax maimon.s@aol.com - ( Attorney for Plaintiffs BALUBHAI G. PATEL, VIRANBHAI PATEL and PLAINTIFF TENANTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 BALUBHAI G. PATEL; VIRANBHAI PATEL; AND PLAINTIFF TENANTS, Plaintiffs, 0 vs. > CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation;; DOES -0 INCLUSIVE, Defendants. No. CV DMG-SK FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; STATE SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIMS > (Violation of Federal Civil Rights] Plaintiffs BALUBHAI G. PATEL, VIRANBHAI PATEL, and 8 their Plaintiff Tenants ("B. Patel", "V. Patel", Plaintiff Tenants", or collectively "Plaintiffs" hereby files this

7 Case :-cv dmg-sk Document Filed 0/09/ Page of PagelD#: First Amended Complaint as a matter of right pursuant to Federal Eules of Civil Procedure (a and state and allege against Defendants as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE l. Jurisdiction of the federal court exists pursuant to 8 U.S.C, Section and 8 U.S.C. Section This action, which arises under (a (. the laws and 8 r' onstitution of the United States, specifically, the First, 9 which involve Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Fourth, 0 to U.S.C. Section 8; violations of federal law pursuant and U.S.C. Section 0(b. State supplemental jurisdiction exists pursuant to 8 U.S. n Section.. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section (b in that Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES is a public entity in this District, the individual defendants reside in this District and the claims arose in this District. PARTIES 0. Plaintiff B. Patel was at all times material herein the owner of a residential hotel commonly known as the Adams Garden Inn ( AG or "Property" located at 80 W. Adams Blvd., nos Angeles, California Plaintiff B. Patel was at all times material herein also lessor of the AG I to Plaintiff V. Patel who operates AGI.. Plaintiffs B. Patel and V. Patel are Asian- 8 Indian and their Plaintiff Tenants are low-income residents of AGI who are of minority racial and ethnic status status.

8 U-CV DMG-SK Document Filed 0/09/ Page of PagelD#: Case I Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES ("City" is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California. 9. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, herein named as DOES l through 0 and persons heretofore unknown involved in the actions taken against Plaintiffs, but are hereby sued in their individual and official capacities. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon alleges that each of the DOE defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein referred to, and that plaintiffs' injuries and damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by those defendants, Plaintiffs sue said defendants by such fictitious names on the grounds that the true names and capacities of said defendants are unknown to them at this time. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint as and when the true names and capacities of said DOE defendants are ascertained. Each reference in this complaint to "defendant," "defendants" or a specifically named defendant 0 also refers to defendants sued under fictitious names. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 0. The AGI has at all times material herein been operating under a valid business license under B. Patel's name.. On October, 0 the City imposed a conditional use permit ("CUP" on the AGI imposing certain 8

9 Case : -cv dmg~sk Document Filed 0/09/ Page of PagelD#: conditions in the operation of the property because of alleged crime at and surrounding the property that was attributed by the City to the operation of the property. The City's imposition of the CUP in 0 was disputed by B. Patel and V. Patel who contended that any crime surrounding the AGI was attributable to the general conditions in the general area where the property is located. 8, The CUP including a requirement, among other 9 conditions that the motel registration books be subject to 0 warrantless and non-consenual inspections under Los Angeles ("LAMC Section.9" despite Municipal Code Section.9 the fact that such motel search section has been declared facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment by the 0 U.S. Supreme Court in a case entitled City of Los Angeles v Patel, S. Ct. (0; and that instead of a hour security patrol that a hour on-site security guard be placed on the property.. Plaintiffs B. Patel and V. Patel objected to the imposition of conditions of the CUP, objecting that the AGI was not a crime problem and not a public nuisance and that the conditions were cost prohibitive and also violated the Fourth Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.. On October, 0, the City Council convened and adopted a resolution to impose the AGI's CUP, but the proceedings to impose the CUP, and the evidence did not 8

10 Case -CV DMG-SK Document Filed 0/09/ Page of Page!D#: justify imposition of the CUP.. The constitutional notice of the proceedings was not given to Plaintiffs I tenants and that as a result, an additional reason exists that the City lacked jurisdiction to impose the CUP.. The imposition of the CUP also violates their rights both under the 8 Federal Fair Housing Law, United States Constition and the U.S.C. Section 0(b in that 9 any displacement of plaintiffs without making reasonable 0 accomodations would have a disparate impact on the tenants and Plaintiffs including their on site manager who is also Asian-Indian.. Pursuant to California Code o Civil Procedure Section 09., Plaintiffs B. Patel and V. Patel and Plaintiff Tenants are statutorially entitled that the City give them written notice of the r-< itv Council's decision to impose the CUP and that such notice be given by the City Clerk sending the notice to them by certified registered mail, return receipt requested and further informing them 0 that they had 90 days from the date of the City Council s October, 0 decision to impose the CUP to appeal the matter to a court of competent jurisdiction under California Code of Civil Procedure Section

11 Case -CV DMG-SK. Document Filed 0/09/ Page of Page ID #:. The City and City Clerk have failed to perform their statutory duties set forth in paragraph above and have failed to provide Plaintiffs B. Patel and V. Patel of written notice of the City Council s October, 0 decision to impose the CUP. 0. Instead, within the last year from the date of this filing and on multiple occassions, the City of Los 8 Angeles Police Department ("LAPD" officers upon instructions 9 the AGI without from the City entered and trespassed upon 0 Plaintiffs prior notice 0 8 consent or a valid court order and said defendants then proceeded to speak to the tenants at the AGI informing them that the AGI was to be closed by the City and that the tenants should no longer pay rent.. Further, in entering the AGI, said LAPD officers entered the motel manager s personal residence and searched such residence and also searched the motel registration records all without consent or a court order.. In doing so, the City and LAPD police officers also have threatened the motel manager with placing him in jail and cited him with violation of the CUP, despite the fact that the CUP was not imposed against him and is without probable cause. The citations have not been filed by the City with the state court.. The City also threatened Plaintiffs with revocation of the CUP and closure of the AGI despite the numerous jurisdictional, constitutional and statutory violations in imposition and execution of the CUP.

12 Case -CV DMG-SK Document Filed 0/09/ Page of Page ID #:. Plaintiff B. Patel, just prior to Che above referenced actions by the City in paragraphs - abopve was an outspoken critic of the City's treatment of himself and other Asian-Indian motel owners and is a member of the group that sued the City in the Supreme Court Patel case and was engaged in other iitiogation over his other motels operating in the City. S. After filing and service of this lawsuit, the 9 City Zoning Administrator, with notice of this action, held 0 zoning hearing to determine plaintiff B. an administrative Patel s compliance with the CUP Plaintiffs appeared at the zoning hearing as did various city officials and plaintiffs opposed the jurisdiction of the zoning administrator to hear the matter pending the legal determinations of the CUP and this lawsuit. 8. Plaintiff tenants testified, some who were elderly and disablwed, and such testimony stated that they were long time permanent residents at the motel and were indigent and unable to find alternative affoerdable housing and further testified that the motel was not a public nuisance or crime ridden but that such alleged criminal activity, if any, arises from the neighborhood in general surrounding the motel but not from the motel itself. 9. Such plaintiff tenants requested that the motel not br closed and that they be accomodated by the City in that closing the motel without relocation assistance would cause them to be homeless.

13 -CV DMG-SK Document Filed 0/09/ Page 8 of Page ID #; Case : 0. On January, 0, the zoning administrator issued a decision revoking the CUP for one year, in effect closing the motel.. The zoning administrator's decision recognized the severe impact to the plaintiff tenants in displacement but the City has not provided, and refuses to provide, relocation assistance or reasonably accomodate the housing 8 needs of the plaintiff tenants On January, 0, plaintiff B. Patel filed a timely appeal of the zoning administrator's decision to revoke the CUP to the City Council which is still pending.. Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit's well established case law, this case is not subject to Pullman abstention as there is no novel California state takings at issue and pursuant to this circuit's case law a petition for writ of administrative mandamus under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 09. is a "special proceeding" and has no preclusive effect on a federal civil rights action under U.S.C. Section 8.. Pursuant to this circuit's case law, a reservation of federal claims in a state court under England v Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, U.S, ( ("England", there is no preclusive effect on the reserved federal issues in a federal civil rights action under U.S.C. Section 8 or U.S.C. Section 0(b, thus, preventing abstention on such issues. 8 8

14 Case -CV DMG-SK Document Filed 0/09/ Page 9 of Page ID #:0. Pursuant to England and this circuit's case law permitting an England reservation in a federal district court action itself plaintiffs reserve all federal issues in this lawsuit and do not expose such federal issues or claims by- way of their state supplemental claims.. Pursuant to this circuit s case law, abstention is improper as to federal statutory claims such as 8 plaintiffs claims under U.S.C. Section 0(b. 9 Based on the above facts, Plaintiffs allege the 0 following claims: FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF ivil Rights Under U.S.C. (Violation of u Section 8 by All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Tenants reallege and incorporate herein by reference to each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs through, and all its subparts, inclusive, as set forth hereinabove. 8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based 0 upon such information and belief allege, that in doing all of the things herein mentioned defendants, and each of them, acted under color of the statutes, regulations, customs and usages of the City of Los Angeles for purposes of state 8 action under U.S.C. Section 8. 9

15 Case ::. -cv dmg-sk Document Filed 0/09/ Page 0 of Page ID #: By taking the actions hereinabove alleged in paragraphs above, defendants and each of them, violated the onstitutional and civil rights of plaintiffs, and in particular their right under the First Amendment, and in particular under the Petition for Grievances Clause of that Amendment and the associational rights of Plaintiffs under said First Amendment, as said amendment is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; the Fourth Amendment as said amendment is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from unreassonable searches and seizures,- the substantive and procedural components of the Due Process Clause of the the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution for arbitrary and capricious actions and without notice and opportuinity to be heard and an adequate opportunity to litigate the imposition of the CUP; and also m violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as similarly situated properties have not been subjected to the 0 actions taken by the Defendants as described in paragraphs - 8 above. 0. Also by taking the actions hereinabove alleged defendants also violated the constitutional and civil rights of plaintiffs, in particular by among other things; violationing theirv rights under the Fifth Amendment, in particular that the exercise of the governmental police power 0

16 Case : -CV DMG-SK Document Filed 0/09/ Page of Page ID #: be for a "public use", as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, but rather was exercised in a manner to drive Plaintiffs Patel and Arrellano out of business in order to transfer the property to a private developer, these actions constituting a private taking under said amendment which further results in the unconstitutional taking of not only their interests in the 8 property but of V. Patel's leasehold interest and the 9 Plaintiff Tenants. 0. The resolution imposing the conditions of the CUP are also facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and is "void for vagueness".. Defendants in engaging in the above-described conduct, in violating plaintiffs constitutional and civil rights as described above, acted according to official policy, custom and practice of the Defendant City.. As a proximate result of the foregoing acts of defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer extreme hardship and damages whi ch 0 damages include, but is not limited to, severe emotional distress and financial and business damages to the motel and property. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based upon such information and belief alleges, that the damages 8 they have collectively suffered and continue to incur is according to proof at trial but in a sum in not less than $0,000, and that they are also entitled to appropriate

17 -CV DMG-SK Document Filed 0/09/ Page of PagelD#: Case ::. 8 9 injunctive relief to prevent the Defendant City, or city officials, from closing the operation of the Travelers as threatened by the Defendants. Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys fees under U.S.C. section 88. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of The Federal Fair Housing Act Under U.S.C. Section 0(b by All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by 0 reference each and every allegation contained m Paragraphs -, and all its subparts, inclusive, as set forth hereinabove.. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, 0 and based upon such information and belief alleges, that the actions of the defendants and each of them, has had the effect of discriminating against Plaintiffs which status is protected based on their race and/or national origin from discrimination in the sale or rental of residential housing under U.S.C. Section 0(b.. As a proximate result of the foregoing acts of defendants, and each of them, plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer hardship and damages, which damages include, but is not limited to, economic damages and noneconomic damages such as emotional distress. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon such information and belief alleges, that the damages they have suffered and 8

18 Case :-cv dmg'sk Document Filed 0/09/ Page of PagelD#; continue to incur will be according to proof at trial but in a sum m excess of $0,000, and that they are also entitled to appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief.. As a result of defendants above alleged conduct, plaintiffs have been compelled to retain legal counsel to prosecute this action and have incurred and will continue to incur attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs are 8 entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees from 9 defendants under the Federal Fair Housing Act. 0 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Petition for Writ of Mandate by All Plaintiffs against Defendant City Plaintiff reallege and incorporate herein by reference to each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs - and all its subparts, inclusive, as set forth hereinabove. 9. Petitioners equitable state remedy in seeking review of the City's decision in adopting the decision to revoke the CUP is to seek mandamus review by way of this petition under California Code of Civil Procedure Section The City violated its duties under both state law and federal law, and specifically although not limited to, violated by adopting the resolution to impose the CUP abused its discretion by failing to proceed in a manner required by law, and further in adopting the resolution to impose the CUP without support of competent admissible

19 Case :I.-cv DMG-SK Document Filed 0/09/ Page of Page ID #: evidence; and in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constiotution, and thus the decision of the City Council of October, 0 must be set aside.. By failing to give the required notice as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 09. and paragraph above, Plaintiffs filing of this petition 8 for writ of mandate is tolled. 9 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 0 (Inverse Condemnation by Plaintiffs B. Patel and V. Patel 0 8 against Defendant City. Plaintiffs realleges and incorporates herein by reference to each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs -, and all its subparts, inclusive, as set forth hereinabove.. In the alternative to the "takings" claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, under Article I, Section of the California Constitution, plaintiff alleges that as a direct and inevitable result of the actions by the defendant City described above, said Plaintiffs Patel and Arrellano property and business has been damaged.. In taking the actions described hereinabove, there has been a "taking" of plaintiffs' property and business and an entitlement protected under state law under Article I, Section of the California Constitution.

20 Case : -CV DMG-SK Document Filed 0/09/ Page of PagelD#:. Plaintiffs have received no compensation for the takingof their property or business, protected under state law.. As a result of the wrongful actions of the defendant plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer extreme hardship and damages, which damages include, but are not limited to, loss of income on their motel business, in 8 economic loss in the value of and his investment in the 9 property, loan fees, lost profits and opportunity, and loss 0 of financing. The damages plaintiffs have suffered and continues to incur is according to proof at trial. 0 8 Plaintiffs have incurred and will incur attorney's fees because of this proceeding which is recoverable under the provisions of Section 0 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Petitioners pray judgment against Defendants and Respondent, and each of them, as follows: FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF..... For damages according to proof at trial; For declaratory and injuntive relief; For attorney's fees pursuant to U.S.C, Section 88 ; SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF For damages according to proof at trial; For declaratory and injuntive relief;. For attorney's fees pursuant to U.S.C. 0(b and the Federal Fair Housing Act;

21 Case : -cv~08888-dmg-sk Document Filed 0/09/ Page of PagelD#: 8 9 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF. For a writ of mandate vacating the City's adoption of the resolution and the City Council decision to impose the CUP on the AGI on October, 0; FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 8. For damages according to proof at trial; 9. For attorney's fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 0; 0 FOR ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 0. For costs of suit; and. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED: February 9, 0 LAW OFFICES OF FRANK A. WEISER 0 8 By: iaj- Cl.T FRANK A. WEISER, Attorney for Plaintiffs BALUBHAI G. PATEL, VIRANBHAI PATEL, and PLAINTIFF TENANTS DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL All the named Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial pursuant to F.R.C.P, 8. DATED; February 9, 0 LAW OFFICES OF FRANK A. WEISER By: r0~ (X. FRANK A. WEISER, Attorney for Plaintiffs BALUBHAI G. PATEL, VIRANBHAI PATEL, and PLAINTIFF TENANTS "N.