LA vs AZ, not!
By Walter Moore
June 8, 2010 VIA FAX TO 213.978.8312 (Two Pages) Hon. Carmen Trutanich Los Angeles City Attorney 200 North Main Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, Ca. 90012 Re: Arizona Amicus Brief City Council File No. 10-0932 Dear Mr. Trutanich: This is to request that you advise the Mayor and City Council that you cannot prepare and file an amicus brief in litigation in Arizona regarding the validity of that state's new statute on illegal immigration. I make the request because the City Council passed a motion this morning that would purportedly require your office to file an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in Friendly House v. Whiting, an action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. (The plaintiffs in that case, by the way, already have at least 14 attorneys of record.) The City Council can and should simply reverse its vote, pursuant to Rule 51 of the City Council Rules. However, if the City Council refuses to do so, you should refuse to prepare and file an amicus brief in the Arizona litigation, because doing so would violate the City Charter, the State Constitution and the Rules of Professional Conduct. Nothing in the City Charter authorizes the City Council, the City Attorney or any other City Officer to spend taxpayer funds preparing and filing legal briefs in out-of-state lawsuits to which the City is not even a party. Section 254 of the Charter authorizes the City Council, "by resolution, to establish the official position of the City with respect to legislation proposed to or pending before the state or federal government." Neither that section nor any other, however, authorizes the Council to pass resolutions -- much less file briefs or initiate other legal proceedings -- regarding legislation in other states, regarding the validity of those states' laws. Section 271 of the Charter authorizes the City Attorney to "represent the City in all legal proceedings against the City," and to "initiate appropriate legal proceedings on behalf of the City." Section 271 does not authorize the City Attorney to defend or prosecute actions for or against third parties, in litigation to which the City is not even a party. Even if the Charter gave the City Council a license to butt into other people's lawsuits in other states -- which it does not -- the State Constitution would still prohibit the Council from doing so. Article 11, Section 5(a) of the California Constitution allows charter cities like Los Angeles only to "make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs." Charter cities, in other words, do not have carte blanche to involve themselves in whatever happens to interest the politicians running them on any particular day. Rather, the beginning and end of their jurisdiction is municipal affairs. The City of Los Angeles has exceeded the limited scope of its Constitutional authority before, when the California Supreme Court struck down the City's tax on savings and loan institutions in the 1990s. California Federal Savings and Loan v. City Of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal. 3rd 1. The City should not exceed its Constitutional authority again -- especially not by something as flagrantly non-"municipal" as attempting to insinuate itself into a legal proceeding in another state to which it is not even a party. Nor can the City Council require you or your staff, as members of the California Bar, to violate the City Charter or the California Constitution. Section 272 of the Charter makes it crystal clear that your client "is the municipal corporation, the City of Los Angeles," not the City Council Members or the Mayor. Furthermore, Rule 3-700(C) of the Rules of Professional Conduct makes it clear that clients cannot in any event insist that their lawyers proceed with groundless claims or pursue an illegal course of conduct. Accordingly, please tell the the City Council that the Charter and the California Constitution preclude your staff from spending scarce tax dollars to file briefs in other people's lawsuits in other states. I have absolutely zero desire to file a taxpayer lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, but if we don't nip this kind of ultra vires misuse of taxpayer funds in the bud, I can only imagine how many more amicus briefs the City Council would direct you to file in coming months and years. Sincerely, Walter Moore |
I am so glad you posted that. Now I hope we will find out how Trutanich will respond.
Good to see you posting again, young lady. |
Not to detract from Walter Moore's appropriate correspondence to the LA City Attorney, Carmen Trutanich:
The municipal government of the city of Los Angeles reminds me of someone who is tragically dysfunctional: a person who has tremendous blindness to one's own faults yet has pushy, abrasive solutions for everyone else's problems but one's neglected own. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState ©2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved