2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DAVID P. MASTAGNI, ESQ. (SBN 057721) DAVID E. MASTAGNI, ESQ. (SBN 0204244) ISAAC S. STEVENS, ESQ. (SBN 251245) MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT, AMICK, MILLER & JOHNSEN, A.P.C. A Pro/essional Corporation 1912 tJt Street Sacramento, California 95811-3151 Telephone: (916) 446-4692 Facsimile: (916) 447-4614 Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff Association of Special Agents Department of Justice

FILED Superior Court Of California, Sacrmto

11123/2011
awDodward ,Deputy Cam& Number.-

34-2011-8110111009
DEPARTMENT

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

ASSOCIATION OF SPECIAL AGENTS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Petitioner/Plaintiff,

V.

CASE NO.:

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS; COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
[CODE Civ. PROC. 526, 1060, 1085; 28 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1988] Unlimited Civil Case Amount in Controversy Exceeds $25,000

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Governor; ANA J. MATOSANTOS, in her official capacity as Director of the Department of Finance; and DOES Ito 100, inclusive, Defendants/Respondents

Plaintiff/Petitioner ASSOCIATION OF SPECIAL AGENTS - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (hereafter referred to as "Petitioner") hereby alleges as follows:

1.

Plaintiff/Petitioner ASSOCIATION OF SPECIAL AGENTS - DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, Petitioners members are employed as Special Agents and Special Agent Supervisors in the State of California Department of Justice ("DOJ.") As used herein, the terms "SPECIAL AGENT" and "SPECIAL AGENTS" refers collectively to employees in the job
VERIFIED PETITION AND
ASA-DOJ V. BROWN, ET AL.

MASTAGNI. HOLSTEDT. AMICK. MILLER & JOHNSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1012 I STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 9581

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

classifications of Special Agent, Special Agent Supervisor, Special Agent in Charge, and Senior Special Agent in Charge. Petitioner brings this action on behalf of itself and its members. 2. Respondent Edmund G. Brown, Jr. ("Brown") is the Governor of the State of

California and is sued in his official capacity. 3. Respondent Ana J. Matosantos ("Mato santo s") is the Director of the Department of

Finance of the State of California, which prepares, works to enact, and administers the State of Californias annual budget. 4, All Respondents are sued in their official capacities. The true names and capacities,

whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of Respondents Does 1 through 100 are unknown to Petitioner, who sues these Respondents by fictitious names. Petitioner will ask the Court for leave to amend this petition to state the true names and capacities of Respondents Does 1 through 100 when they are ascertained. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Respondents Does 1 through 100 are in some way legally responsible to Petitioner for the matters alleged herein.

VENUE
5. Venue is proper in the Superior Court for the County of Sacramento. The Office of

the Governor is headquartered in Sacramento County. Most of the acts and occurrences alleged herein occurred in the County of Sacramento.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

6. Petitioner serves as an advocate for SPECIAL AGENTS working in the State of

California Department of Justices Division of Law Enforcement and Division of Criminal Law. 7. The Division of Law Enforcement is composed of the Bureau of Firearms, the

Bureau of Forensic Services, the Bureau of Gambling Control, the Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence, and the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement. The Division of Criminal Law is composed of the Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse. 8. Unlike other Bureaus in the Division of Law Enforcement, the Bureau of Narcotic

Enforcement and the Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence are primarily funded by the States
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT 2 ASA-DOJ V. BROWN, ET AL.

MASTAGNI. HOLSTEI)T. AMICK, MILLER & JOHNSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIOI 19121 STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 958

I 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

general fund. 9. The Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement ("BNE") is the oldest narcotics enforcement

bureau in the United States. The BNE operates and manages a variety of programs throughout the 1 state. 10. The BNEs Clandestine Laboratory Enforcement Program ("CLEP") works to shut

down illegal drug labs throughout the state, including clandestine labs manufacturing LSD, synthetic heroine, and methamphetamine. 11. The BNE also operates and participates in multi-jurisdictional, regional and special

task forces throughout the state. The regional task force program began in the 1970s, and coordinates local law enforcement agencies in operations to combat regional drug and gang issues. To deal with multi-jurisdictional drug trafficking and gang problems beyond the scope of regional task forces, the BNE also assigns personnel to special task forces throughout the state. The BNE runs approximately 52 regional task forces from offices in Redding, Sacramento, San Francisco, Fresno, Riverside, San Jose, Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego. 12. Last year, BNEs programs resulted in the seizure of billions of dollars in illegal

drugs, including methamphetamine, cocaine, marijuana, and heroin. In July 2011, agents seized eighteen kilos of cocaine from a vehicle crossing the border at the Calexico port of entry, In October 2011, special agents from the Inland Crackdown Allied Task Force conducted an undercover sting that resulted in the seizure of fifty kilograms of cocaine worth an estimated five million dollars. 13, Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Attorney General will

close over two-thirds of the BNEs task forces on December 31, 2011 because of the cuts to the Division of Law Enforcement. 14, The Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence ("BIT") initiates complex law

enforcement and investigative actions. It investigates officer involved shootings, homicides, cold cases, sexual assaults, child pornography and exploitation, and human trafficking. It also acts as Californias law enforcement liaison to Mexico and Interpol. 15. The BIT operates the California Witness Relocation and Protection Program,

protecting witnesses and their families who are in danger as a result of testifying in criminal
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
ASA-DO.) V. BROWN, FT AL.

MASTACNI. IIOLSTEDT. AMICK. MILLER & JO8INSEN 9 P ROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 9121 STREET SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 9581

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

proceedings. 16. The BIT operates the Major Crimes Program, which provides high-level expertise for

the investigation of complex and multi-jurisdictional crimes. In addition, the Major Crimes Program receives cases that exceed the ability of local agencies in terms of scope, resources, or expertise. It also handles cases where conflicts of interest exist. 17. The BNE and BIT use sophisticated crime fighting techniques to combat drugs, Street

gangs, and violent criminal activities. These techniques are not typically available to local law enforcement agencies. As a result, the elimination of the BNE and BIl poses a serious threat to the safety of Californias citizens. 18, On June 30, 2011, Respondent Brown signed into law the State of Californias

Budget for 2011-2012. 19. The States 2011-2012 Budget eliminated general fund support for the Department

of Justices Division of Law Enforcement. As a result, the Division of Law Enforcement lost approximately $36.8 million in funds in 2011, and will lose an additional during the next fiscal year. 20. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges approximately 206 SPECIAL $35 million in funds

AGENT positions were funded by the general fund. Petitioner is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that, as a result of the elimination of general fund money, these positions will be eliminated absent this Courts intervention. 21. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, upon elimination of all

SPECIAL AGENT positions funded by the general fund, only approximately eighteen SPECIAL AGENT positions will remain in the BNE. 22. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that approximately thirty-four

of the BNEs task forces will be eliminated as a result of the funding cuts alleged above. 23. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, as a result of the funding

cuts alleged above, the Division of Law Enforcements regional offices in Redding, San Jose, Sacramento, and Orange County have been closed, 24. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges the Attorney General cannot
ASA-DOJ v. BROWN, ET AL.

94ASTACINI. HOISTEDT. AMICK, MILLER & JOl-INSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 912 1 STREET SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 9591

VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

allocate general fund monies allocated to other Department of Justice programs to fund Division of Law Enforcement Programs without Respondent Matosantos written approval. 25. Pi Further, Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that there has been

no express statutory authorization for eliminating the SPECIAL AGENTS functions as required by Government Code sections 12502 and 15002,5,

6 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Infringement on Attorney Generals Constitutional Authority) 26. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 by law. 29. A writ must issue when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy; the 28. forth herein. 27. California Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 (a) provides: A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person. A writ of mandate lies to compel a public official to perform an official act required Petitioner incorporates by reference all the forgoing paragraphs as though fully set

respondent has a duty to perform, and the petitioner has a clear and beneficial right to performance. 30. Article V, Section 13 of the State Constitution provides: Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State. It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced. The Attorney General shall have direct supervision over every district attorney and sheriff and over such other law enforcement officers as may be designated by law, in all matters pertaining to the duties of their respective offices, and may require any of said officers to make reports concerning the investigation, detection, prosecution, and punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions as to the Attorney General may seem advisable. Whenever in the opinion of the Attorney General any law of the State is not being adequately enforced in any county, it shall be the duty of the Attorney General to prosecute any violations of law of which the superior court shall have jurisdiction, and in such cases the Attorney General shall have all the powers of a district attorney. When required by the public interest or directed by the Governor, the Attorney General shall assist any district attorney in
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT ASA-DOJ V. BROWN, ET AL.

MASTAGNI. J-IOLSTEDT. AMICK. MILLER & JOHNSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 912 I STREET ACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 9581

1 2 3 4 31

the discharge of the duties of that office. Respondents have clear, present, and ministerial duties to refrain from materially

interfering with the Attorney Generals performance of her constitutional duties. 32. Respondents have a clear, present, and ministerial duty to comply with the

5 I Government Code. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT ASA-DOJ v. BROWN. FT AL.

33.

Respondents breached their clear, present, and ministerial duty by eliminating

general fund support for the Division of Law Enforcement. Because the Respondents did not appropriate general fund monies to the Division of Law Enforcement, the Attorney General will be forced to disband approximately two-thirds of the task forces in the Division of Law Enforcement and has already been forced to close several offices throughout the state. 34. Petitioner and Petitioners members have a beneficial interest in Respondents

performance of their duties to refrain from materially interfering with the Attorney Generals performance of her constitutional duties. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that approximately 206 SPECIAL AGENT positions will be eliminated as a result of the elimination of Division of Law Enforcement functions funded by the general fund. 35. Petitioner seeks a writ compelling Respondents to refrain from materially impairing

the Attorney Generals performance of her constitutional duties, either by compelling Respondents to restore general funds to the Division of Law Enforcement or compelling Respondents to allow the Attorney General to allocate other Department of Justice funds to the Division of Law Enforcement. A judgment in favor of Petitioner will confer a significant benefit on the general public and employees of the Attorney General; namely, it will protect the integrity.of ongoing investigations in the Department of Justices Division of Law Enforcement and prevent Respondents from unlawfully interfering with the Attorney Generals selection and retention of employees. The necessity and burden of private enforcement of the rights at issue in this action make an award of attorneys fees and costs appropriate. Such fees and costs should not, in the interest of justice, be paid out of any recovery in this action.

MASTAONI. HOLSTEDT. AMICK. MILLER & JOFINSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1912 I STREET SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 9581

on

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 38. 39. 36,

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of Govt. Code 15002.5) Petitioner hereby incorporates by reference all of the foregoing paragraphs as though

fully set forth herein. 37. Government Code section 15002.5 provides: The attorney general may arrange and classify the work of the Department of Justice, and consolidate, abolish, or create divisions, bureaus, branches, sections or units within the department. Any statutory or other reference to the Office of the Attorney General, the State Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, the Division of Narcotic Enforcement, or the Division of Gambling Control shall be construed to refer to the division, bureau, branch, section or unit within the department which is performing the functions referred to; and no such function shall be abolished without express statutory authority. (Emphasis added.) The Attorney Generals functions are set forth in the State Constitution and statutes. Article V, section 13 of the State Constitution empowers the Attorney General to,

among other things, "see that the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced" and prosecute any violations of law which she does not believe are being adequately enforced. 40. Under Government Code section 15026, the Department of Justices functions

include investigating crime which "seeks to supply illegal goods and services such as narcotics, prostitution, loan sharking, gambling, and other forms of vice to the public." Government Code section 15026 further directs the Department of Justice to investigate organized criminal violations involving intrusion into legitimate business activities by the use of illegitimate methods, including, but not limited to, monopolization, terrorism, extortion, and tax evasion. 41. Pursuant to Government Code section 15006, the Department of Justices functions

include maintaining a "continuing investigation on a statewide basis of investment frauds and business crimes." 42. Government Code section 15025 provides: The Department of Justice shall seek to control and eradicate organized crime in California by: (a) Gathering, analyzing and storing intelligence pertaining to organized crime.
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT ASA-DOJ v. BROWN. ET AL.

MASTAGNI. I-IOLSTEDT. AMICK. MILLER & JOHNSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 912 I STREET 8ACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 9581

2 3 4 5 6 7 43.

(b) Providing this intelligence to local, state and federal law enforcement units. (c) Providing training and instruction to assist local and state law enforcement personnel in recognizing and combating organized crime. (d) Providing a research resource of specialized equipment and personnel to assist local, state, and federal agencies in combating organized crime. (e) Conducting continuing analyses and research of organized crime in order to determine current and projected organized crime activity in California. (1) Initiating and participating in the prosecution of individuals and groups involved in organized crime activities. Pursuant to Penal Code section 11 05 1: The Department of Justice shall perform duties in the investigation, detection, apprehension, prosecution or suppression of crimes as may be assigned by the Attorney General in the performance of his or her duties under article V, section 13 of the Constitution. 44. Pursuant to Penal Code section 11050: In any crime of statewide importance, the Attorney General may, upon the request of any district attorney, sheriff or chief of police, assign to such officer so requesting, an investigator or investigators for the investigation or detection of crimes, and the apprehension or prosecution of criminals. 45. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11450, The Attorney General may, in conformity with the State Civil Service Act, Part 2 (commencing with section 18500), Division 5, Title 2 of the Government Code, employ such agents, chemists, clerical, and other employees as are necessary for the conduct of the affairs of the Department of Justice in carrying out its responsibilities specified in this division. 46. Respondents have a clear, present, and ministerial duty to refrain from abolishing

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the functions of the Attorney General, including functions performed by the Department of Justices Division of Law Enforcement, without express statutory authority. 47. Respondents breached their duties by withholding general fund monies from the

Division of Law Enforcements budget. 48. By eliminating general fund support from the Division of Law Enforcement,

Respondents abolished the functions of the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement and the Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence.
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT ASADOJ V. BROWN, FT AL.

MASTAGNL UOLSTE DI. AMftK, MILLER & JOHNSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 19121 STREET SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 9581

1
7

49,

Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, without general fund

support, all positions in the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement and Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence not funded by special funds must be eliminated. 50. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, as a result of

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

Respondents elimination of general fund support to the Division of Law Enforcement, the Department of Justice will no longer be able to perform all the duties of investigation, detection, and apprehension of crimes assigned to the Division of Law Enforcement by the Attorney General in the performance of her constitutional duties. Si. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, as a result of the

Respondents elimination of general fund support to the Division of Law Enforcement, the Department of Justice will no longer be able to perform all the duties assigned to the Division of Law Enforcement by the Attorney General. 52. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, as a result of

Respondents elimination of general fund support to the Division of Law Enforcement, the Division will no longer be able to assign SPECIAL AGENTS for the investigation and detection of crimes. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Respondents have not acted in conformity with a statute enacted by the Legislature expressly abolishing the functions of the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement or the Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence. 53. Petitioner has a clear, present, and beneficial interest in the enforcement of

Respondents duty to refrain from abolishing the functions of the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement and the Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence without express statutory authority. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that approximately 206 SPECIAL AGENT positions will be eliminated as a result of the elimination of Division of Law Enforcement functions funded by the general fund. 54. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law to challenge the

Respondents violation of Government Code section 15002.5. 55. California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 provides in pertinent part: Upon motion, a court may award attorneys fees to a successful party
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT ASA-DOJ v. BROWN, FT AL,

\4ASTAGNI, IIOLSTEDT. AMICK, \4I1 LER & JOHNSEN S PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 912 I STREET ACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 9581

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 57. 56.

against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if: (a) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement, or of enforcement by one public entity against another public entity, are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any. A judgment in favor of Petitioner will confer a significant benefit on the general

public and employees of the Attorney General; namely, it will protect the integrity of ongoing investigations in the DOJ Division of Law Enforcement and prevent Respondents from unlawfully abolishing functions of the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement and the Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence without express statutory authority. The necessity and burden of private enforcement of the rights at issue in this action make an award of attorneys fees and costs appropriate. Such fees and costs should not, in the interest of justice, be paid out of any recovery in this action. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of Govt. Code 12502) Petitioner hereby incorporates by reference all of the foregoing paragraphs as though

fully set forth herein. 58. The Attorney General is directly elected by the people of the State of California, and

is the chief law enforcement official of the State. The Attorney General carries out independent duties assigned to her office, (See Gov. Code 12500 et seq.) 59. Pursuant to Government Code section 15000, the Attorney General is charged with

directing and controlling the Department of Justice. These duties include managing the Department of Justices Division of Law Enforcement. 60. The Attorney General has the authority to appoint employees to act in furtherance

of the purposes of the Attorney Generals office. 61. Government Code section 12502 provides: The Attorney General may appoint and fix the salaries of such Assistant Attorneys General, Deputy Attorneys General, service agents, experts, and technical and clerical employees as he deems necessary for the proper performance of the duties of his office. Each appointee is a civil executive officer.
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT ASA-DOJ V. BROWN, FT AL.

\IASTAGNI, HOLSTEOT. AMICK. FuLLER & JOIINSEN 9 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 19121 STREET SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 9581

10

1 2 3 4

62.

Respondents have a clear, present, and ministerial duty to refrain from infringing on

the Attorney Generals authority to appoint SPECIAL AGENTS. 63. Respondents breached this duty by eliminating the general fund from the Division

of Law Enforcements budget. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, as a result of the elimination of the general fund support, approximately 206 SPECIAL AGENT positions will be eliminated. 64. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Attorney General Karnala

5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Harris opposes the elimination of SPECIAL AGENT positions from the Division of Law Enforcement. Petitioner is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that, but for the specific allocation of budget cuts to the Division of Law Enforcement, the Attorney General would allocate the required budget cuts to other parts of her budget and retain the SPECIAL AGENT positions Respondents are forcing her to eliminate.

65.

Petitioner has a clear, present, and beneficial interest in the enforcement of

Respondents duty to refrain from infringing on the Attorney Generals right to appoint SPECIAL AGENTS. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that approximately 206 SPECIAL AGENT positions will be eliminated as a result of the budget reductions specifically allocated to the Department of Justices Division of Law Enforcement. 66. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law to challenge the

15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Respondents infringement on the Attorney Generals right to appoint SPECIAL AGENTS. 67. A judgment in favor of Petitioner will confer a significant benefit on the general

public and employees of the Attorney General; namely, it will protect the integrity of ongoing investigations in the DOJ Division of Law Enforcement and prevent Respondents from unlawfully interfering with the Attorney Generals selection and retention of employees. The necessity and burden of private enforcement of the rights at issue in this action make an award of attorneys fees and costs appropriate. Such fees and costs should not, in the interest of justice, be paid out of any recovery in this action.

25
26 27 28

I/I
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
ASA-DOJ V. BROWN, ET AL.

MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT AMICK. MILLER & JOHNSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 19 2 I STREET SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 9581

11

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 68. II forth herein. 69.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (28 U.S.C. 1983) (Against Respondent Brown and Does 1 through 50) Petitioner incorporates by reference all the forgoing paragraphs as though fully set

Petitioner is an affiliate organization of the California Statewide Law Enforcement

Association ("CSLEA"), the recognized bargaining agent for employees in State Bargaining Unit 7, which includes SPECIAL AGENTS. 70. CSLEAs Board of Directors is comprised of the Presidents of each affiliate

organization representing classifications of employees in State Bargaining Unit 7, including the President of the ASSOCIATION OF SPECIAL AGENTS - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 71. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, on or about September

9, 2010, CSLEAs Directors including the ASSOCIATION OF SPECIAL AGENTS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEs former President - voted to endorse Meg Whitmans candidacy in the 2010 gubernatorial election. 72. Thereafter, CSLEA did in fact officially endorse the candidacy of Meg Whitman for

governor of California. 73. At the time CSLEA announced its endorsement of Meg Whitman, Respondent

Brown was the State Attorney General. 74. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges the gubernatorial campaign

of Meg Whitman used CSLEAs endorsement to recruit potential voters to elect her as California governor. 75. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Meg Whitmans gubernatorial

campaign focused on the fact that the union representing SPECIAL AGENTS did not endorse Brown, who was Attorney General at the time. 76. On November 2, 2010, Brown was elected Governor of California. He was sworn

in as Governor on January 3, 2011. 77. After taking office, Brown released a budget summary including unprecedented,

dramatic cuts to the SPECIAL AGENTS within the Department of Justice.

VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT ASA-DOJ V. BROWN. ET AL.

MASTAGNI. HOLSTEDT. AMICK. MILLER & JOFINSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1912 1 STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 9581

12

78. 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

The budget proposed, supported, defended and ultimately signed into law by Brown

eliminated General Fund support for the Division of Law Enforcement. 79, Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Legislature did not

desire to allocate budget reductions specifically to the Division of Law Enforcement. 80. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Respondent Brown demanded

that funds be reduced for the Division of Law Enforcement, and refused to approve the budget 1 unless such cuts were included. 81. 82. Respondent Brown acted under color of state law to pass this budget provision. Petitioners members have since been issued employment option letters, which state

to each recipient "You are an employee who will be directly impacted as a result of these reductions." The letters also demand that each recipient choose from a list of options that would entail significant changes to their employment, including the selection of an alternative work location in the event of transfer, demotion, and the option of selection of separation from state service. 83. Petitioner is informed and believes and therefore alleges that the Office of the

Attorney General will issue notices on December 1, informing SPECIAL AGENTS of layoffs to their personnel. 84. Petitioners participation in the endorsement of Meg Whitmans gubernatorial

campaign was constitutionally protected speech because it was related to political topics and did not fall under any of the exceptions to protected political speech. 85. Respondent Browns conduct, performed under color of state law, has deprived

Petitioner of its constitutional right of free speech embodied in the First Amendment by depriving Petitioner the ability to contribute to the political dialogue without fear of targeted punishment or political retaliation. 86. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Respondent Brown proposed

and supported legislation to eliminate general fund support for SPECIAL AGENTS because of Petitioners political endorsement of Meg Whitman. 87. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Petitioners constitutionally
ASA-DOJ V. BROWN, ET AL,
1)

MASTAGNI. IIOLSTEDT. AMICK. MILLER & JOHNSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1912 I STREEI SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 9581

VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

1.)

protected political speech was a primary and substantial motive for Browns promotion and passage
7

of the bill eliminating general fund support for the Department of Justice Division of Law Enforcement. 88. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, absent Petitioners

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

constitutionally protected political speech, Brown would not have promoted and passed the provision eliminating general fund support for the Department of Justice Division of Law I Enforcement. 89. Respondent Browns political retaliation would cause an individual or entity of

ordinary firmness to silence and censor its political discourse. 90. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Respondents Brown and Does

1 through 50, inclusive, worked in concert to retaliate against Petitioner and its members for their political activities. 91. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Respondents acted with

the shared purpose of eliminating general fund support for the Department of Justice Division of Law Enforcement to retaliate against Petitioner and its members for their political activities. 92. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Petitioners and

Petitioners members constitutionally protected political speech was a primary and substantial motive for the promotion and passage of the bill eliminating general fund support for the Department of Justice Division of Law Enforcement. 93. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, absent Petitioners

constitutionally protected participation in the endorsement of Meg Whitman, the Respondents would not have demanded the elimination of general fund support for the Department of Justice Division of Law Enforcement.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Injunctive Relief) (Code Civ. Proc. 526) 94. forth herein.
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
A5A-DOJ V. BROWN, ET AL,

Petitioner incorporates by reference all the forgoing paragraphs as though fully set

VIASTAGNI, HIOLSTEDT, AMICK, IILLER & JOHNSEN 8 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 912 I STREET $ACRAMENT(. CALIFORNIA 9581

14

95. 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
C.

Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Respondents intend to

terminate the employment of approximately 170 SPECIAL AGENTS on December 31, 2011, as evidenced by communications distributed by the Attorney Generals office. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that approximately 206 SPECIAL AGENT positions will be eliminated from the Division of Law Enforcement unless funding is restored or the Attorney General is allowed to allocate other funds from her budget to make up for the money withheld from the Division of Law Enforcement. 96. Judicial relief is urgently needed because Respondents will terminate approximately

170 SPECIAL AGENTS on December 31, 2011. 97. the violation. 98. Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its petition for Respondents must be enjoined from violating State law as soon as possible prior to

mandamus and declaratory relief causes of action. 99. injured in that: a. On information and belief, approximately 206 SPECIAL AGENT positions will be eliminated from the Division of Law Enforcement on December 31, 2011; b. On information and belief, many of the SPECIAL AGENTS who are not laid off on December 31, 2011 will be forced to relocate to different geographical regions of the state, and/or be demoted; On information and belief, ongoing investigations by the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement and the Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence will be terminated or be affected materially and adversely by Respondents actions. 100. Petitioner is without an adequate remedy at law. If Respondents are not restrained and ordered to comply with article V, section 13 of the Constitution and Government Code sections 12502 and 15002.5 approximately 206 SPECIAL AGENTS positions will be eliminated, resulting in the abandonment of ongoing investigations and relocation of Petitioners members. 101. The facts and circumstances of this case warrant temporary, preliminary, and
VERIFIED PETITION AND ASA-DOJ V. BROWN, ET AL.

Absent prompt resolution or a stay, Petitioner and its members will be irreparably

MASTAGNI. HOLSTEDL AMICK, MILLER & JOHNSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 9121 STREET SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 9591

COMPLAINT

15

I 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

permanent injunctive relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relict) (Code Civ. Proc. 1060) 102. Plaintiff/Petitioner incorporates by reference all the forgoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 103. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Petitioner and Respondents concerning their respective rights and obligations under Government Code section 12502. As alleged in this complaint, Petitioner contends Respondents violated Government Code section 12502 by allocating budget cuts to the Department of Justice Division of Law Enforcement that will result in the forced termination of the Attorney Generals employees. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Respondents dispute this contention. 104. Petitioner seeks to enforce its rights and to declare Respondents obligations under the law. In particular, Petitioner asks the Court to declare that Respondents are prohibited from requiring the Attorney General to allocate budget reductions in a manner that forces the Attorney General to terminate employees in the Department of Justice Division of Law Enforcement. 105. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Petitioner and Respondents concerning their respective rights and obligations under Government Code section 15002.5. As alleged in this complaint, Petitioner contends Respondents violated Government Code section 15002.5 by abolishing the functions of the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement and the Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence without express statutory authority to do so. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Respondents dispute this contention. 106. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Petitioner and Respondents concerning their respective rights and obligation to allow compliance with article V, section 13 of the State Constitution. As alleged in this complaint, Petitioner contends Respondents materially interfered with the Attorney Generals constitutional authority by abolishing the functions of the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement and the Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence without express statutory authority to do so. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges Respondents
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
ASA-DOJ V. BROWN, ET AL.

MASTAONI. UOLSTEDT, AMICK. MILLER & ]OI-INSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIO 191 , I STREET SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95

16

1 2 3 4

dispute this contention. 107. Petitioner seeks to enforce its rights and its members rights and to declare Respondents obligations under the law. Petitioner asks the Court to declare that Respondents are prohibited from prohibiting the Attorney General from allocating Department of Justice funds to the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement and the Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence to preserve the functions of those bureaus.

5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Wherefore, Petitioner prays for judgment as follows: 1. For issuance of writ of mandate compelling Respondents to refrain from interfering

with the Attorney Generals Constitutional and statutory authority to appoint employees; 2. For issuance of a writ of mandate compelling Respondents to allow the Attorney

General to allocate to the Division of Law Enforcement funds budgeted to other Department of Justice programs; 3. 4. For issuance of a writ compelling Respondents to restore the status quo ante; For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction

restraining Respondents from prohibiting the Attorney General from allocating Department of Justice funds to pay for Division of Law Enforcement programs;

5.

For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction

prohibiting Respondents from abolishing functions of the Department of Justice unless and until a statute is enacted authorizing the abolishment of those functions; 6. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction

prohibiting Respondents from terminating the employment of SPECIAL AGENTS employed in the State of California Department of Justice; 7. For a determination that the Respondents are not entitled to require the Attorney

General to allocate budget reductions to the Department of Justice Division of Law Enforcement; 8. For a determination that Respondents violated Government Code section 15002.5

by eliminating general fund funding from the Division of Law Enforcement;

VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT ASA-DOJ V. BROWN, ET AL.

MASTAGN]. HOLSTEDT. AMICK. MILLER & JOI-INSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1912 I STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 9581

17

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

9.

For an award of attorneys fees and costs pursuant to California Code of Civil

Procedure section 1021,5, California Government Code section 800, and 28 U.S.C. section 1988; 10. 11. For costs of suit incurred herein; and For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: November 22, 2010

MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT, AMICK, MILLER & JOHNSEN, A.P.C.

By DAVID P. MASTAGNI Attorney for Petitioner

MASTAGNL HOLSTEOT. AMICK, MILLER & bUNSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 912 I STREET SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 9581

VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

ASADOJ v. BROWN. ET AL.

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
VERIFIED PETITION AND
MASTAGNI. HOLSTEDT. AMICK. MILLER &. I OFINSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 19121 STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 9581

VERIFICATION I, Michael Loyd, declare: 1. 2, 1 am the President of the Association of Special Agents - Department of Justice. 1 am fully familiar with the facts in the above-titled matter, and if necessary, 1 would

be able to offer true and accurate testimony regarding the same. 3. 1 verify each and every paragraph of this Petition for Writ of Mandamus and

Complaint as true and correct based upon my personal knowledge of the above-referenced events, except where alleged by information and belief, and if called upon to testify hereto, I could and would do so competently. I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing declaration is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and if called upon to testify thereto, I could and would competently do so.

Executed on November 23, 2011 in

California.

MICHAEL LOYD,

,7

ASA-DOJ V. BROWN, ET AL.

COMPLAINT

19