City of Huntington Beach v. Los Alamitos Cmty. United

• Decision Date: 10 January 2020
• Docket Number: G057209
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOS ALAMITOS COMMUNITY UNITED et al., Movants and Appellants.

CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOS ALAMITOS COMMUNITY UNITED et al., Movants and Appellants.

G057209

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

January 10, 2020

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. 30-2018-00984280)

OPINION

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, James L. Crandall, Judge. Dismissed.

Latham & Watkins, Melissa Arbus Sherry, Samir Deger-Sen, William M. Friedman, Collen E. Heyler; ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Jennifer Pasquarella, Michael Kaufman, Sameer Ahmed; National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Jessica Karp Bansal; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Immigrants' Rights Project, Spencer E. Amdur and Cody Wofsy for Movants and Appellants.

Michael E. Gates, City Attorney, and Brian L. Williams for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

INTRODUCTION

The California Values Act, Government Code section 7284 et seq. (the CVA), restricts the ability of local law enforcement agencies to inquire into immigration status, place individuals on an immigration hold, and use personnel or resources to participate in certain immigration enforcement activities. The trial court concluded that one part of the CVA, Government Code section 7284.6 (section 7284.6), unconstitutionally infringed the authority of charter cities under article XI, section 5, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution to create, regulate, and govern city police forces. The court granted a petition for writ of mandamus brought by the City of Huntington Beach (the City or Huntington Beach) and ordered Xavier Becerra, as the California Attorney General, to refrain from enforcing section 7284.6 against the City.

In City of Huntington Beach v. Becerra, G057013, a companion appeal brought by the Attorney General, we hold section 7284.6 is constitutional as to charter cities and reverse the judgment with directions to enter judgment in favor of the Attorney General.

The appellants in this matter are Los Alamitos Community United, Samuel Pullen, Henry J. Josefsberg, Oscar Rodriguez, Victor Valladares, and Oak View ComUNIDAD (collectively, the Community Appellants).¹ The Community Appellants identify themselves as "residents, workers, and community associations in the City of Huntington Beach and the nearby City of Los Alamitos" and claim they "represent some of the primary intended beneficiaries of the CVA." The Community Appellants argue the CVA is a constitutional measure that promotes statewide concerns of public safety, health, and education.

The Community Appellants were not named as defendants by the City in its petition for writ of mandamus. Instead, they brought themselves into the litigation byfiling a motion for a new trial after judgment was entered and then filed a notice of appeal after the motion for a new trial was denied.

After the record was filed, the City moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground the Community Appellants lack standing. We issued an order that the motion to dismiss would be decided in conjunction with the decision on appeal. We now conclude the Community Appellants lack standing to appeal under applicable law and therefore grant the City's motion to dismiss the appeal. In the companion appeal, the Attorney General has vigorously—and successfully—argued the same legal points made by the Community Appellants.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I.The Community Appellants

Los Alamitos Community United (LACU): LACU is an association of individuals "with strong ties to Los Alamitos"² including people who live in Los Alamitos, people who work in Los Alamitos, people who send their children to schools in the Los Alamitos Unified School District, and people who pay property and other taxes. "L[ACU] is committed to honoring and protecting community diversity, including immigrants; opposing acts and messages of prejudice and hate directed at community diversity, including immigrants; and promoting reconciliation concerning community diversity and immigration in Los Alamitos and its surrounding areas."

Samuel Pullen: The Reverend Samuel Pullen is the pastor of Community Congregational United Church of Christ of Los Alamitos ("CCUCC"), located in Los Alamitos. He is a resident of California. "A core belief of CCUCC and Rev. Pullen's teachings is that no matter one's race, gender, sexual orientation, class, creed, or immigration status, all people belong to God and to one worldwide community of faith." Pullen claims the Los Alamitos Ordinance causes significant harm to his ability to serve his congregation in that immigrant members are less likely to attend church, pay dues, and otherwise participate in church services.

Henry J. Josefsberg: Henry J. Josefsberg has been a resident of Los Alamitos for over 20 years. He is an attorney and has his own law practice based in Los Alamitos. Mr. Josefsberg pays business taxes to Los Alamitos and property taxes for property located in that city. He has an interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of Los Alamitos funds, and an interest in ensuring that Los Alamitos law enforcement resources are not diverted to assist in deportation programs.

Oscar Rodriguez: Rodriguez is a community activist and cofounder of Oak View ComUNIDAD (Oak View). He is a United States citizen and resides in Huntington Beach. He pays city taxes, including sales and utility taxes. Although a United States citizen, he is more reluctant to deal with the Huntington Beach police officers because the trial court's order allows them to help United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detain and deport people in violation of the CVA.

Victor Valladares: Valladares is a community activist and cofounder of Oak View. He is a United States citizen and resides in Huntington Beach. He pays city taxes, including sales and utility taxes. Although a United States citizen, he is more reluctant to deal with the Huntington Beach police officers because the trial court's order allows them to help ICE detain and deport people in violation of the CVA.

Oak View: Oak View is an association of residents of Oak View, a predominately Hispanic neighborhood in Huntington Beach. Members of Oak Viewinclude immigrants with valid immigration status, immigrants without valid immigration status, and United States citizens. Oak View members pay property, sales, utility, and other taxes to Huntington Beach. Oak View advocates on behalf of residents of the Oak View neighborhood to address concerns on a wide range of issues, including "environmental justice, economic justice, education equity, and immigrants' rights."

II.Mandamus Proceedings

The City filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief to "invalidate the unconstitutional mandates of [the CVA] that impermissibly strip the City's constitutionally protected Charter authority with respect to 'municipal affairs.'" The petition alleged the CVA unconstitutionally violates the City's authority to conduct municipal affairs guaranteed under article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution by mandating how the City operates its police force. As relief, the City prayed for issuance of writ mandate compelling the California Attorney General not to enforce the CVA against the City and for a declaration the CVA is unconstitutional and preempted by article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution. The Attorney General filed opposition, which included the legislative history of the CVA and declarations.

At a hearing conducted on the City's petition for writ of mandamus and complaint, the City narrowed the scope of relief by identifying section 7284.6 as the "operative portion" of the CVA that the City sought to have invalidated.

The trial court granted the City's petition for writ of mandamus and issued an order for issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate. A peremptory writ of mandate was issued ordering the Attorney General to refrain from enforcing section 7284.6 against the City. In a statement of decision, the court found: (1) the "'constitution, regulation and government'" of a police force is a "quintessential municipal affair underArticle XI, section 5(a) of the California Constitution"; (2) the "'constitution, regulation and government'" of a police force is "a municipal prerogative specifically protected by constitutional text under Article XI, section 5(b) of the California Constitution;" and (3) "there is no 'statewide concern' justifying the state[']s regulation of a Charter City's police force." The Attorney General's appeal from the order granting the City's Petition for writ of mandamus is the subject of the companion case.

III.The Community Appellants' Motion for a New Trial

After the trial court issued the peremptory writ of mandate, the Community Appellants filed a notice of intent to move for a new trial. This was the first time the Community Appellants appeared in the litigation. The notice of intent to move for a new trial stated the motion would be made under Code of Civil Procedure section 657(6) ("Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, or the verdict or other decision is against the law"). The notice of intent stated the Community Appellants are "'aggrieved' nonparties with standing to challenge this judgment because their interests as residents of charter cities Huntington Beach and Los Alamitos are directly implicated by the court's judgment." The motion for a new trial was filed 10 days later.

The trial court denied the motion for a new trial for two reasons. First, the court found the Community Appellants were not legally aggrieved such that they could assert a claim and bring...