0 TIMOTHY J. SABO, SB # E-mail: sabo@lbbslaw.com KAREN A. FELD, SB# E-Mail: kfeld@lbbslaw.com 0 East Hospitality Lane, Suite 00 San Bernardino, California 0 Telephone: 0..0 Facsimile: 0.. Attorneys for INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a joint powers authority SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a California joint powers authority, vs. Plaintiff, CASE NO. VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR () DECLARATORY RELIEF AND () INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA; CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG, an individual sued in his official capacity; CALIFORNIA DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ANA J. MATOSANTOS, an individual sued in her official capacity; SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER TAX COLLECTOR LARRY WALKER, an individual sued in his official capacity and DOES through 00, inclusive, Defendants. Trial Date: None Set Plaintiff INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (hereinafter, Plaintiff or IVDA ) alleges as follows:. Plaintiff INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a California joint powers agency comprised of the COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, the CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, the CITY OF LOMA LINDA, and the CITY OF COLTON. The IVDA is a joint powers agency (and sometimes referred to as a joint powers authority which for purposes hereof shall be synonymous regardless of the term used) --.
0 0 whose jurisdictional boundaries are located entirely within the County of San Bernardino. IVDA s principal office and place of business is located at 0 E. Third Street, in the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, California.. Defendant, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a sovereign state of the United States of America.. Defendant JOHN CHIANG, sued in his official capacity, is and at all times relevant hereto was, the Controller for the State of California.. Defendant ANA J. MATOSANTOS, sued in her official capacity, is and at all times relevant hereto was, the Director of Finance for the State of California.. Defendant LARRY WALKER, sued in his official capacity, is and at all times relevant hereto was, the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER TAX COLLECTOR.. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants DOES through 00 and sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to state the true names and capacities of DOES through 00 when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that DOES through 00 are responsible in some manner for the acts complained of herein and/or are otherwise responsible for the enforcement of the ABx (the Dissolution Bill ).. Venue is properly in this Court as Health and Safety Code Section (a) requires any action challenging acts taken pursuant to the Dissolution Bill to be brought in the Superior Court of the County of Sacramento. THE DISSOLUTION BILL. The Dissolution Bill was adopted by the California Legislature during the 00-0 First Extraordinary Legislative Session and signed into law on June, 0, effective June, 0.. The stated purpose of the Dissolution Bill is to maximize the amount of redevelopment property tax increment revenues to be diverted for non-redevelopment purposes. To that end, pursuant to the Dissolution Bill, every redevelopment agency was slated to be dissolved as of February, 0, and to transfer all of its assets to a successor agency. --.
0 0 0. The Dissolution Bill immediately suspended the authority of every redevelopment agency in California to enter into new agreements, amend existing agreements and further suspends any other form of activity, including those activities set forth in a lawfully adopted redevelopment plan, except those activities specifically enumerated by Health & Safety Code Sections, et seq.. On or about June, 0, after prior passage by the Legislature, the Governor signed ABx and ABx as part of the budget package with such bills to take effect immediately as providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill. ABx added Parts. and. (commencing with Section ) and ABx (commencing with Section ) added Part. to the Health & Safety Code. In general, ABx ends the existence of redevelopment agencies as defined, and specifically as defined therein, prohibits such redevelopment agencies from a) incurring monetary or legal obligations or indebtedness; b) purchasing or conveying real property or executing deeds of trust; c) making loans or providing financing; d) modifying existing agreements; e) transferring any assets; f) amending a redevelopment plan; g) exercising eminent domain powers; h) hiring staff or increasing salaries or entering into consulting contracts; i) certifying an EIR; or i) filing a validation action (collectively monetary or legal obligations or indebtedness ). ABx would have negated ABx if the city or county which formed the redevelopment agency had made certain payments for which tax increment revenues may be used after the adoption of an ordinance to reinstate the redevelopment agency as previously formed by such city or county. As noted in paragraph, ABx was held to be unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court on December,0, at the same time that ABx was held to be constitutional.. Parts.,. and., as added by ABx, apply only to redevelopment agencies as defined in added Part., Section (b): For purposes of this part, agency or redevelopment agency means a redevelopment agency created or formed pursuant to Part (commencing with Section 000) or its predecessor or a community development commission created or formed pursuant to part. (commencing with Section 00) or its predecessor.. Part., Dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies and Designation of Successor Agencies adds Sections, et seq., to the Health & Safety Code. Section (a) () again --.
0 0 refers to all redevelopment agencies and redevelopment agency components of community development agencies created under Part (commencing with Section 000), Part. (commencing with Section 000), Part. (commencing with Section 00) and Part. (commencing with Section 00) that were in existence on the effective date of this part are hereby dissolved and shall no longer exist as a public body, corporate or politic.. The validity of the Dissolution Bill and ABx, which was adopted simultaneously with the Dissolution Bill and provided that redevelopment agencies could avoid dissolution under the Dissolution Bill if the Agency made certain payments (the Forced Payment Bill ), was challenged by petitioners in California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos, Case No. S, as violating the State Constitution and other laws (the CRA Action ).. On or about December, 0, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in the CRA Action which effectively upheld the Dissolution Bill and invalidated the Forced Payment Bill.. In its decision, the California Supreme Court extended certain deadlines set forth in the Dissolution Bill in light of delays resulting from the CRA Action and the Modified Partial Stay. In particular, the deadline for any action to be taken prior to May, 0 was extended four months.. Health and Safety Code Part., Section states that [t]o the extent that any provisions of Part (commencing with Section 000)...conflicts with this part, the provisions of this part shall control...further, if a provision of Part (commencing with Section 000)...provides an authority that the act adding this part is restricting or eliminating, the restriction and elimination provisions of the act adding this part shall control. The provisions of Section.0 continue to apply and are not in conflict.. Part. includes Section (c) () regarding a redevelopment agency in the form of a joint powers authority... and further states that... the entities that created the former redevelopment agency may be a successor agency... The reference to the redevelopment agency in the form of a joint powers authority is only used in the section that deals with distribution of assets to the members of the joint powers authority seeking to act as the successor entities to the redevelopment agency upon dissolution and in accordance with the applicable joint --.
0 0 powers authority agreement. The IVDA is not such a redevelopment agency created by any entity and certainly not an entity created as a redevelopment agency by the Member Jurisdictions.. Part., Section provides that all provisions of the CRL that depend on the allocation of tax increment to redevelopment agencies shall be inoperative, except for a redevelopment agency operating under Part. (Health & Safety Code Section ABx ). This Section does not apply to IVDA because the IVDA is not a redevelopment agency, as defined but rather was granted the powers of a redevelopment agency pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section.0 the understanding of which is critical to properly characterizing the powers of the IVDA and its legal basis for existence. 0. Neither ABx nor ABx reference joint powers authorities created pursuant to Health and Safety Code.0, and thus the Legislature under the generally accepted rules of statutory construction intended to exclude such joint powers authorities from the provisions of ABx and ABx. THE FORMATION OF THE IVDA. Since its formation in January 0, the IVDA is, and has been, a joint powers authority organized and existing pursuant to the provisions of Government Code section 00, et seq, formed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino ( County ) and the respective City Councils of the Cities of Colton, Loma Linda and San Bernardino (the County and the cities are collectively referred to here as Member Jurisdictions ), for the purposes of exercising specific powers of a redevelopment agency under certain provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law, Health & Safety Code Sections 000, et seq. ( CRL ), in addition to other powers common to all Member Jurisdictions.. On or about October,, the United States Congress passed The Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, Public Law 00-, providing the basis for implementing the recommendations of the Commission on Base Realignment and Closures (the Commission ). The Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, as amended, shall hereinafter be referred to as BRAC.. In or about December of, the Commission announced the closure of the former Norton Air Force Base ( NAFB ), which is generally located within the boundaries of the --.
0 0 City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, California and the former George Air Force Base, (the former GAFB ) generally located within the boundaries of the City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino, California. The former NAFB and the former GAFB are located within the same county and within fifty (0) miles of one another.. In, the State Legislature found that the closures of the former Norton Air Force Base in the City of San Bernardino and George Air Force Base in or within the vicinity of the City of Victorville, both within the same county, posed a special threat of blight.. On or about January, 0, as a result of that special threat and in response to the closure of both the former NAFB as well as the former GAFB at the same time, Assembly Bill, commonly referred to as the Eaves Bill became effective, and such special legislation is now codified at Health & Safety Code Section.0 (formerly 0.), as amended, as previously adopted in. The Legislative Council comments to former Section 0. state: The Legislature finds and declares that a special law is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances faced by the County of San Bernardino...The County of San Bernardino is the county in California in which two military facilities or installations are proposed to be closed pursuant to Public Law 00-.. Health & Safety Code Section.0(j) states: The Legislature finds and declares that the closure of two or more military facilities or installations within the County of San Bernardino will cause serious economic hardship in that county, including loss of jobs, increased unemployment deterioration of properties and land utilization and undue disruption of the lives and activities of the people. Therefore, the Legislature finds and declares that to avoid serious economic hardship and accompanying blight, it is necessary to enact this act which shall apply only within the County of San Bernardino...Therefore, the joint powers authorities authorized by this section should make every reasonable effort to guarantee that these vital airport facilities are retained for general aviation use now and into the future.. Health & Safety Code Section.0(b) specifically permits the formation of a joint powers authority (thereafter called the authority ) which is not a redevelopment agency but which has certain powers of a redevelopment agency: --.
0 0 The legislative bodies for communities having territory within, adjacent to, or in proximity to a military facility or installation described in subdivision (a) may create a separate joint powers agency pursuant to Chapter (commencing with Section 00) of Division of Title of the Government Code, which shall have and exclusively exercise powers of an agency in furtherance of the redevelopment of a project area approved by the joint powers agency. The joint powers agency so formed shall include as one of its members the county in which the project area is located. In addition to the powers of an agency, the joint powers agency so formed shall also act as the legislative body and planning commission for all approvals and actions required by this part of legislative bodies and planning commissions for the adoption and implementation of a redevelopment plan. However, all land use, planning, and development decisions with regard to the land within the project area shall continue to be under the control and jurisdiction of each of the respective local legislative bodies or planning commissions, as applicable. (Emphasis added). Pursuant to the Eaves Bill, the legislative bodies of the communities having territory within, adjacent to, or in proximity to the former NAFB were granted the authority to create a joint powers agency to effectuate the reuse and redevelopment of the Norton Air Force Base and certain properties within a definitive distance of the boundaries of the former NAFB, providing IVDA with a mechanism for implementing and carrying out plans for reuse of the former NAFB as directed under BRAC.. On July, 0, the IVDA Redevelopment Plan was adopted by official action of the governing board of the IVDA, in accordance with the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law and the Eaves Bill, and that Redevelopment Plan has been amended from time to time. 0. The IVDA was created for the purpose of facilitating the reuse of the former Norton Air Force Base (the former NAFB ).. In 0, a validation action was filed as Case No. 0 (consolidated from two separate cases) by certain plaintiffs seeking to invalidate the formation of the IVDA and the adoption of the IVDA's Redevelopment Plan for the IVDA Redevelopment Project Area. The plaintiffs alleged that, among other items, the IVDA was not properly formed pursuant to the adoption of an ordinance as is otherwise required by the CRL for a city or county established redevelopment agency.. On June,, this Court entered its judgment validating the formation of the IVDA as a joint powers entity, finding that the member jurisdictions of the IVDA observed all --.
0 0 necessary procedural steps required under California law. The court further determined that the Amended Joint Powers Agreement was properly approved, executed and entered into pursuant to Government Code Section 00, et seq., and Health & Safety Code Section 0. (currently found at.0, et seq.) and is valid in all respects and legally enforceable in accordance with its terms. A copy of that Judgment is attached and incorporated as Exhibit A hereto.. On November, 00, the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino determined that Health and Safety Code Sections.,. and. were not applicable to the IVDA and do not supersede Health and Safety Code Section.0(d). Said Sections were added by AB0 as part of the initial redevelopment reforms adopted by the State Legislature in the early 0 s but such reforms were adopted as general legislation without reference to the Eaves Bill and thus the Eaves Bill was not amended by the general legislation. It further held that the IVDA s policies and determinations concerning the effect, modification, extension or impact of time limits on the IVDA s Redevelopment Plan, including past, current and future indebtedness and debt instruments are valid and legal. A copy of the Judgment is attached and incorporated as Exhibit B hereto.. Based upon this 0 year legal history of the formation of the IVDA, and the court approved basis for its existence under the Eaves Bill as adopted by the California Legislature in, the IVDA is unique under California law. The scope of the Dissolution Bill simply was not intended to encompass a joint powers agency established with the legislative history surrounding the Eaves Bill with the redevelopment powers granted to a joint powers agency in San Bernardino County such as the IVDA pursuant to special legislation adopted solely for San Bernardino County.. Although the IVDA was granted certain redevelopment powers various State of California legislative enactments as set out here, it is not a community redevelopment agency. A copy of the Amended Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (Inland Valley Development Agency) is attached and incorporated as Exhibit C hereto.. IVDA is a public entity authorized to bring this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 0. --.
0 0 ALLEGATIONS. On or about March, 0, the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector of San Bernardino County advised that the IVDA s rights to exercise redevelopment powers and receive property tax increment revenues in excess of what is required to pay for Enforceable Obligations has been eliminated by the provisions of ABx. A copy of that March, 0, letter is attached and incorporated as Exhibit D hereto. The Auditor-Controller recognized that the IVDA would continue in existence after the effective date of ABx.. On or about March, 0, the State Department of Finance Redevelopment Administration ( DOF ) advised that the IVDA s ability to exercise redevelopment powers or receive property tax increment revenues terminated with the enactment of ABX. A copy of the email is attached and incorporated as Exhibit E hereto.. Plaintiff has exhausted its remedies and now must seek relief from the court. 0. The Defendants, and each of them, have erroneously classified Plaintiff as a redevelopment agency subject to the provisions of the Dissolution Bill.. Plaintiff challenges the application of the Dissolution Bill to the Plaintiff because due to its unique creation and responsibilities as the entity to oversee the reuse of a closed federal air force base, it is not a redevelopment agency as defined.. Because plaintiff is not a redevelopment agency, it is not subject to dissolution or the resulting effects under the Dissolution Bill including those affecting the tax increment revenue status of property taxes allocated to the IVDA.. The Dissolution Bill is preempted by the federal Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, which granted the ability to the Department of Defense ( DOD ) to determine the entity to be considered as the Local Reuse Authority ( LRA ) to work with the DOD in the closure and redevelopment of NAFB. The IVDA as the LRA since the formation of the IVDA in January 0, included within its states powers the legal ability as stated in Section.0 of the IVDA Amended JPA Agreement to own and operate the aviation assets on the NAFB and any other properties on NAFB as is further set forth below: Section.0. Purpose. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the Act and Health and Safety Code section 0. which provides for the joint exercise of powers common to the Members to create a separate joint powers agency which shall --.
0 0 have, in addition to such powers common to the Members, and exclusively exercise powers of a redevelopment agency in furtherance of the redevelopment of the Project Area. The purpose of this Agreement is to promote the redevelopment of the Project Area through the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the Agency in order to eliminate blight, promote the retention of existing and the creation of additional employment opportunities and cause the orderly redevelopment of the Project Area in furtherance of the health, safety and welfare of the Members and the region within which the Project Area is located. The State Legislature, upon enacting Health and Safety Code Section 0., declared that it is the policy of the State Legislature to assist communities within the County in their attempt to preserve the military facilities and installations for their continued use as airports and aviation related purposes. In furtherance of such legislative intent, the Members acknowledge and agree that it is the intent of the Agency so created by this Agreement to acquire the Norton Air Force Base property from the United States government upon mutually agreeable terms and conditions as between the Agency and the United States government. It is also the intent of the Members that the Agency shall acquire, own, maintain, lease and operate the Norton Air Force Base property, which shall be named and known as the San Bernardino Regional Airport, for such aviation uses as may be legally permitted upon such property or such other legal uses as may be determined by the Agency. The Members further acknowledge and agree that the reuse and redevelopment of the Norton Air Force Base, the adjacent property and the other properties in proximity thereto will assist in both the creation of new employment opportunities on a regional basis and will be in the best interests of each Member and the residents within the boundaries of each Member. All such ultimate uses of the Norton Air Force Base by the Agency and any acquisition thereof shall be accomplished in accordance with all applicable laws of the State.. Transfers of real property on the former NAFB were transacted by the DOD to the IVDA in reliance upon not only the specified powers of the IVDA as the LRA as set forth above but also in reliance upon the ability of the IVDA, whether directly or through the San Bernardino International Airport Authority ( SBIAA ), to fund the aviation activities of the Airport through the use of the tax increment revenues available to the IVDA pursuant to former Health & Safety Code Section 0. (currently, Section.0, et seq.). The DOD would not have considered any local entity to be the LRA without such local entity demonstrating financial sustainability to implement a military base closure and reuse program. The Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA ) sought assurances that any owner/operator of the aviation facilities on NAFB had the financial resources to assure the operation and maintenance of the NAFB aviation facilities for safety purposes prior to the time when airport revenues would be sufficient to thus --. 0
0 0 sustain the required operational and maintenance levels for public airports.. IVDA was not formed in the manner set out in ABx and does not meet the definition of a redevelopment agency under ABx. IVDA was not formed or created under any of the methods enumerated in the Dissolution Bill and therefor the IVDA is not subject to dissolution or the removal of redevelopment powers through the Dissolution Bill. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF (Against All Defendants). Plaintiff incorporates and restates the allegations of paragraphs through above as though set forth herein in full.. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants, and each of them, in that Plaintiff contends that the Dissolution Bill interferes with and is preempted by BRAC, and thus cannot be enforced as against Plaintiff, the federally designated entity empowered to implement the program for the reuse of former NAFB.. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants and each of them, in that Plaintiff contends that because of its creation pursuant to California Government Code Section 00 et seq., it is not a redevelopment agency subject to the Dissolution Bill.. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants, and each of them, in that Plaintiff contends that the Dissolution Bill violates the contracts clauses of the United States and California Constitutions because it unconstitutionally impairs, negates, diminishes, denigrates and abrogates numerous agreements, covenants and legally enforceable commitments between and among cities, counties, and private third parties, including bondholders and private corporations, and holders of certificates of participation, as well as agreements, covenants, and legally enforceable commitments. 0. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants, and each of them, in that Plaintiff contends because the same subject matter is covered by inconsistent legislation (in that the IVDA was created by special legislation (Health and Safety Code Section.0) and the Dissolution Bill is general legislation (ABx and ABx )), --.
0 0 and there was no stated intent by the Legislature that the Dissolution Bill applies to joint powers authorities created pursuant to Government Code 00, et seq., and authorized to exercise redevelopment powers pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section.0), the special legislation controls and the Dissolution Bill was never intended to apply to the IVDA.. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants, and each of them, in that Plaintiff contends that because the IVDA is not a redevelopment agency, property taxes allocated to it may continue to be deemed tax increment revenues.. Plaintiff desires a judicial determination and declaration of its rights and duties of Plaintiff and Defendants with respect to the matters set forth above, in particular that: (a) The application of the Dissolution Bill to the IVDA interferes with and is preempted by the federal program for the reuse of the former NAFB, and is therefore unlawful and invalid. (b) The Dissolution Bill does not apply to the IVDA because the IVDA was created pursuant to California Government Code Section 00, et seq., and is not a redevelopment agency as defined by the Dissolution Bill. (c) The application of the Dissolution Bill to the IVDA is unlawful, invalid and inconsistent with the contracts clauses of the United States and California Constitutions. (d) As general legislation, the Dissolution Bill was not intended to apply to the IVDA because it was created by special legislation (Health and Safety Code Section.0) and there was no stated intent by the Legislation that the Dissolution Bill applies to joint powers authorities such as the IVDA.. Such determinations are necessary and appropriate at this time in order for Plaintiff and Defendants to determine their rights and duties with respect to the Dissolution Bill as it applies to the Plaintiff, so that the unsettled state of affairs may be resolved, and so the IVDA can resume and continue its operations as mandated. --.
0 0 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Against All Defendants). Plaintiff incorporates and restates the allegations in paragraphs through above, as though set forth herein in full.. On or about June, 0, and continuing to the present, Defendants and each of them have wrongfully and unlawfully threatened to enforce the Dissolution Bill, the effect of which will cause the dissolution of Plaintiff and irreparable harm to the reuse of the former NAFB.. The threatened and actual wrongful conduct of Defendants, and each of them, unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of this court, will cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff as Defendants threats to abolish Plaintiff as a joint powers agency and cause irreparable harm to the reuse of the former NAFB is directly contrary to the mandate under BRAC for the reuse of the former NAFB.. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the injuries that are threatened by Defendants wrongful conduct because it will be impossible for Plaintiff to determine the precise amount of damages it will suffer if Defendants wrongful conduct is not restrained.. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief by a court order enjoining Defendants from implementing, enforcing, and/or carrying out the Dissolution Bill or any portion thereof as against Plaintiff.. Plaintiff also requests an order requiring Defendants to show cause, if any, why they should not be enjoined as set forth in this complaint, during the pendency of this action. 0. Plaintiff requests a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction, enjoining defendants and their agents from taking any action to enforce the Dissolution Bill as against the IVDA.. Defendants, and each of them, have a mandatory duty to refrain from implementing and/or carrying out any of the provisions of the Dissolution Bill, which is preempted by BRAC as a federal program.. Plaintiff is entitled to a writ of mandate because there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, in the ordinary course of law. --.
0 0. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief enjoining Defendants, and each of them, from implementing, enforcing and/or carrying out the Dissolution Bill or any portion thereof. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants and each of them as follows: ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION. For a declaration that as applied to IVDA, the Dissolution Bill interferes with and is thus preempted by BRAC;. For a declaration that due to its creation pursuant to California Government Code Section 00, et seq., and the granting of redevelopment powers pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section.0, et seq., and moreover due to its unique creation and responsibilities for the reuse of the former NAFB, that Plaintiff is not a redevelopment agency subject to the Dissolution Bill;. For a declaration that the Dissolution Bill violates the contracts clauses of the United States and California Constitution; and ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction and enjoining Defendants and each of them, and their agents, servants, and employees, and all persons acting under, in concert with, or for them from implementing, enforcing, carrying out, enforcing or otherwise compelling Plaintiff to comply with the Dissolution Bill;. For a peremptory writ of mandate directing and enjoining Defendants and each of them, and their agents, servants, and employees, and all persons acting under, in concert with, or for them from implementing, enforcing, carrying out, enforcing or otherwise compelling Plaintiff to comply with the Dissolution Bill; ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION. For attorneys fees;. For costs of suit;. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. --.
DATED: April, 0 Respectfully submitted, By: Karen A. Feld Attorneys for INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY VERIFIED BY OPERATION OF LAW UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 0 0 Murrieta Valley Unified School Dist. v. County of Riverside () Cal.App.d, - --.