You are on page 1of 8
CONFORMED copy OF ORIGINAL FILED |, RICHARD A. LEVINE, ESQ., State Bar No. 91671 08 Angeles Superior Court | SILVER, HADDIN, SILVER, WEXLER & LEVINE an oeut 1428 Second Street, Suite 2 Sania Monta, CA 90407-216 et Santa Monica, 2161 John A. | (10) 393-1486 (Telephone) in A Cake, Ne Oferta | G10) 395-5801 (Pax) Fi Sy | Attorneys for Plaintiff, Los Angeles Police Protective League ‘SUPERIOR-COURT-OF-THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES POLICEPROTECTIVE ) CASENO. BC 481380 LEAGUE, ) ) COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE. Plaintiff, ) RELIEF AND DECLARATORY ) RELIEF v 2 ) {C.C.P. Sections 526, 1060; C.C. Section ) 3423} CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal ration; CHARLES BECK, Chief of [Unlimited Jurisdiction} Police for the City of Los Angeles, and DOES) | Through XX, inclusive 3 | Defendants. 2 BYE AX ) HIRST CAUSE OF ACTION [ENJUNCTION] For a First Cause of Action by Plaintiff, Los Angeles Police Protective League against Defendants, City of Los Angeles, Charles Beck, Chief of Police for the City of Los Angeles and Does IEXX inclusive for Injunctive Retief, Plaintiff alleges as follows: 1, Atall times mentioned herein, Defendant City of Los Angeles (the “City”) was and is a Charter City organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, 2, Atall times mentioned herein, Defendant Charles Beok (the “Chief") was and is the Chief of Police for the City, charged with the supervision, administration and management of the Los Angeles Police Department and is sued in his official capacity only. i COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY RELIEF | 3. Atall times mentioned herein, Does I-XX, inclusive, were the agents, servants and employees of the City and/or the Chief and in doing the things hereinafter allege were acting ‘within the scope of their authority as agents, servants and employees with the permission and consent of the City and/or the Chief. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of Does I-XX when ascertained. 4, Defendants, and each of them, were acting for and on behalf of the other Defendants and in the scope of each Defendant’s actual or supposed authority to act for such other Defendants. 5, Defendants, and each of them, are, and were, acting under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, policy, customer usage of the City, 6. Plaintiff, Los Angeles Police Protective League (hereinafter referred to as the “League”) is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an employee organization as defined in Government Code Section 3500 ef seg., recognized to represent sworn peace officers as set forth in California Penal Code Section 830.1 within the ranks of police officers, police detectives, sergeants, and lieutenants employed by the Los Angeles Police Department/City of Los Angeles with regard to all matters concerning wages, hours and working conditions, 7. Atall times mentioned herein, Plaintiff's represented members were public safety officers within the meaning of Government Code Section 3300 et seg., (Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act) and entitled to all the rights and protections under the Act 8. Atall times mentioned herein, Plaintiff's represented employees were entitled to fair and meaningful administrative hearings, including pre-disciplinary and proceedings conducted before the Board of Rights of the City of Los Angeles arising from proposed disciplinary actions as required by the Due Process Clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions, Los Angeles Charter Section 1070 (hereinafter referred to as the “Charter”), the Board of Rights Manual and the Government Code Section 3300 et seq., including Section 3304 (b). 9, Atal times mentioned herein, Charter Section 1070 provided that no permanent peace officer employed in the Los Angeles Police Department may be subject to suspension 2 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 1|| and/or demotion, removed or otherwise separated from employment with the Police 2 | Department except upon a finding of guilty after a full, fair and impartial hearing before the 3 || Board of Rights as follows 4 “The tights of a member, except the Chief of Police and any other 5 member in the position exempt from civil service, to hold his or her 6 office or position and to receive compensation attached to the office 7 or position is hereby declared to be a substantial property right of 8 which the holder shall not be deprived arbitrarily or summarily, not 9 other than as provided in this section, No member shall be 10 || suspended, demoted in rank, suspended and demoted in rank, ui removed, or otherwise separated from the service of the Department 12 (other than by resignation), except for good and sufficient cause 13 shown upon a finding of guilty of a specified charge or charges 4 assigned as cause or causes after a full, fair and impartial hearing 15 before a Board of Rights...” (Charter Section 1070 (a); (Emphasis 16 Added). 7 10, Pursuant to Charter Section 1070 (h) members of the Board of Rights are 18 || composed of two (2) officers of the rank of Captain or above and an individual who is not a 19 || member of the Department. 20 11, Pursuant to Charter Section 1070 (n) the Board of Rights is vested, upon 21 | consideration of the evidence presented during hearing, with the authority to render findings of 22 || guilty or not guilty on each charge alleged by the Department against the accused officer. In the 23 | event an officer is found not guilty, the Board shall order the officer to be restored to duty 24 || without loss of pay and without prejudice and the order shall be self-executing and immediately 25 || effective. 26 In the event the Board of Rights finds the accused officer guilty, it “shall preseribe its 27 penalty” for recommendation to the Police Chief and in “prescribing the penalty, the Board 28 |, shall look to the nature and gravity of the offense of which the member has been found guilty COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 1 | and may at its discretion review the departmental personne! history and record of the member.” 2 | (Charter Section 1070 (n) (0)) 12, Within the last two (2) years, Defendants have been imposing involuntary conditional Official Reprimands wherein at the time of issuance of such disciplinary reprimand for a sustained incident of misconduct, the Defendant’s Police Department and Defendant Police Chief established a predetermined minimum disciplinary penalty which will be imposed in the event of a future commission of the same or similar misconduct by the officer, 13. The imposition of involuntary conditional Official Reprimands violate 4 5 6 1 8g 9 10 || contravenes the protections and purpose of Los Angeles City Charter Section 1070 and Board Plaintiff's represented employees’ constitutional rights to procedural due process and 11 | of Rights Manual where such conditional Official Reprimand as applied by the Defendants: 12) @ deprives the subject officer a full and meaningful opportunity to challenge a subsequent 13 || alleged complaint and penaity at the Board of Rights hearing; (b) results in the abdication by 14) the Board of Rights of its legal obligations under City Charter 1070 (n)(o) to prescribe its 15 | penalty and consider the nature and gravity of the offense of which the officer has been found 16 |, guilty in light of the then existing departmental personal history and record of the officer; 17 || (c) contravenes and frustrates the independence and autonomy invested in the Board of Rights 18 || under Charter Section 1070 which, in effect, requires a independent determination of the 19 || penalty by the Board of Rights; (d) deprives the respective Commanding Officer of his/her 20 } legal and administrative obligation to independently consider and recommend the penalty of 21 || any subsequent offense alleged against an officer based upon mitigating circumstances of the 22 || subsequent complaint and in light of the intervening personal history of the subject officer; and 23 || (©) undermines the objective of procedural due process and decisional case law thereto by 24 || predetermining the penalty of a subsequent offense, rather than considering all the facts and 25 } circumstances (and other relevant considerations, ie. personal history) before reaching a 26 || decision on a recommended penalty. 27 14, No plain, adequate or complete remedy at law is available to the League to 28 |) prevent the reoccurrence of the improper and unlawful violations by the Defendants of the 4 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY RELIEF exe ae rights and safeguards to be afforded its represented employees. 15, _ Inthe absence of such injunctive relief, the employees represented by the League will sustain great and irreparable harm. 16. The successful prosecution of this action will result in the significant impairment of a large class of persons who are entitled to the enforcement of important constitutional, statutory, municipal and/or administratively mandated rights. Consequently, the League is, entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and/or pursuant to Government Code Section 3309.5. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION [DECLARATORY RELIEF] 17. Fora Second Cause of Action by Plaintiff, Los Angeles Police Protective League against Defendants, City of Los Angeles, Charles Beck, Chief of Police for the City of City of Los Angeles, and Does I-XX inclusive, for Declaratory Relief, Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1- 14, 16 as though fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows 18. An actual and justiciable controversy has arisen, and now exist, between the Plaintiff League on one hand and Defendants on the other hand, as to whether the Defendants, including the Defendant Chief of Police, may impose involuntary Official Reprimands which predetermine the minimum disciplinary penalty in the event of a future commission of the same | or similar alleged misconduct by the officer. | 19, The Plaintiff League contends that Defendants, including the Chief of Police | may not, consistent with procedural due process, Los Angeles City Charter Section 1070 and/or the Boatd of Rights Manual or applicable law, impose involuntary Official Reprimands which predetermine the minimum disciplinary penalty against an officer in the event of a future commission of the same or similar alleged misconduct by such officer, Defendants contend they are properly complying with applicable statutes municipal and/or administrative procedures in the imposition of involuntary conditional Official Reprimands. COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY RELIEF Coe rans 10 ul 12 13 4 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 2B 4 25 26 27 20. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1060, Plaintiff seeks a judicial determination that the Defendants, including the Defendant Police Chief, are precluded from imposing involuntary Official Reprimands which predetermine the minimum disciplinary penalty against Plaintiff League’s represented employees in the event of a future commission of the same or similar alleged misconduct by such represented employees. 21. Such a judicial determination is necessary and appropriate in order that the parties may ascertain their respective legal rights and duties. 22, There are no effective and administrative remedies available to Plaintiff to compel the relief sought herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Los Angeles Police Protective League prays for Judgment against Defendants as follows: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 1) For a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and Permanent Injunction enjoining Defendants and each of them from imposing, against Plaintiff Los Angeles Police Protective League’s represented employees, involuntary Official Reprimands containing a predetermined minimum disciplinary penalty to be imposed in the event of a future commission by an employee of the same or similar alleged misconduct; 2) For attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 and California Government Code Section 3309.5; 3) For costs of suit incurred herein; 4) For such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 1.) For a judicial determination that Defendants, including the Chief of Police may not, consistent with procedural due process, Los Angeles City Charter Section 1070 and/or the Board of Rights Manual or applicable law, impose involuntary Official Reprimands which predetermine the minimum disciplinary penalty against an officer in the event of a future 6 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY RELIEF |) commission of the same or similar alleged misconduct by such officer. 2) For attomey’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 and California Government Code Section 3309.5; 3) For costs of suit incurred herein; 4) For such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper. SILVER, HADDEN, SILVER, WEXLER & LEVINE Dated: _% (Wlet By abe Be RICHARD A, LEVINE ‘Attorneys for Plaintiff Los Angeles Police Protective League LAPPL Conditional OR Lawsuit 38.12 1 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY RELIEF i VERIFICATION 3 | STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGETI S, 4 have read the foregoing COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF, end know its contents, J {Yama party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my 6 | own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to ‘those matters I believe them to be true, /XX)_Lam/_XX Jan Officer /_/ a partner of LOS ANGELES POLICE PROTECTIVE 8 | LEAGUE a party to this action, afd am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. / XX_/T am informed and believe and on that 9] ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. /_/ The matters stated jn the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are 10 |, stated on information and belief, and as to those matter I believe them to be true. 11] (J Lamone of the attomeys for ** a party to this action. Such party is absent from the Bunty of aforesaid where such attorneys have their offices, and 1 make this verification for and 12 | on bebalf of that party for that reason. am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. B 4 Executed on_Lacett /[7 2a)2_ at Of es ErHiT, CA, California, 15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is truc and correct. 16 7 18] psec ads PAUL M. WEBER SI [ATURE 19} a 2 2B 24 28 26 | a 28