-------_. --- ..

;,
ORIGINAL
Michael J. San Souci
LAW OFFICE OF
MICHAEL J. SAN SOUCI
2135 Charlotte St., Suite lA
Bozeman, MT
Telephone No.: (406) 586-2221
Fax No.: (406) 582-1966
E-Mail: mjsansouci@aol.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs & Petitioners
GALLATIN C(WfHY eLERK
OF DISTRICi COURT .
JENNIFER BRMiDON
AUG 26 PrJ 2 36
fiLED
By
DEPUTY
MONTANA EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
GALLATIN COUNTY
PETER ARNONE, DAVE BALDWIN,
ROSS HARTMAN, DAWNETTE OSEN
and SHARON SWANSON, for themselves
and on behalf of all similarly situated
Bozeman residents, property owners and
taxpayers,
Plaintiffs & Petitioners,
vs.
CITY OF BOZEMAN, BOZEMAN CITY
COMMISSION and JEFF KRAUSS,
CARSON TAYLOR, CHRIS MEHL,
CYNTHIA ANDRUS and I-HO POMEROY,
individually and as agents ofthe City of
Bozeman, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants & Respondents.
--------- ---:1
Cause
COMWLMNT AND PETITION
FORDECLARATORYRELIEF

Plaintiffs and Petitioners (hereinafter collectively "plaintiffs") allege as follows:
COMPLAINT AND PETITION FORDECLARATORY RELIEF
__
~
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Nature of Action
1. This is a request for declaratory relief, and a corresponding declaratory
judgment, brought pursuant to the Montana Uniform. Declaratory Judgments Act
("UDJA"), Title 27, Chapter 8, Montana Code Annotated ("MCA").
2. By virtue of this action plaintiffs seek a legal declaration from this honorable
Court invalidating the action taken by the Defendant City and its commissioners in the
recent enactment of their Nondiscrimination Ordinance (UNDO"), which purports to
broadly regulate and penalize alleged discrimination in employment, public
accommodations and housing. It is plaintiffs' position that the action taken by said
defendants in the enactment of this ordinance is unavoidably preempted by State law, is
ultra vires and beyond the scope of any power granted to the City and should, therefor, be
declared invalid and without legal force or effect. Plaintiffs further request that said
defendants be required ~ reimburse them for all reasonable costs and private litigation
expenses that necessarily have been, and will be, incurred in their having to pursue this
declaratory relief action for the purpose ofvoiding this action.
Parties and Their Relationships
3. Plaintiffs are, and at all times herein mentioned were, residents of the City of
Bozeman. Plaintiffs are members of a large class of similarly concerned and aggrieved
citizen-taxpayers, and thereby have appropriate standing to bring this action within the
COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 2
meaning ofthe UDJA, 27-8-202, MCA, since they are persons interested in, and whose
rights, status or other legal relations may be affected by, the enactment and
implementation ofthe NDO. Accordingly, plaintiffs are thereby entitled to have
detennined by this Court questions concerning the validity or invalidity ofsaid ordinance.
4. The Defendant City Commission, and its individual members, serve for and
under the auspices ofthe Defendant City ofBozeman, a political subdivision ofthe State
of Montana. Defendants Krauss, Taylor, MeW, Andrus and Pomeroy serve as
Commissioners for the Defendant City and, in all oftheir actions complained ofherein,
said defendants acted for themselves and as agents on behalfofthe other named
defendants.
5. Plaintiffs are infonned and believe, and thereon allege, that those defendants
sued herein as "DOES" are the officers, agents andlor employees of other named
defendants, who v ~ ratified andlor approved the acts or omissions ofthose responsible
andlor are otherwise legally responsible, in some manner, for the wrongful conduct herein
alleged. Once said defendants have been properly identified, plaintiffmay ask that this
complaint be amended to include said defendants, in-lieu of their fictitious names,
together with apt and proper words to charge them.
Bases of Jurisdiction and Venue
6. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 3-5-302,
MeA, and venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 25-2-121, 25-2-122 and
COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR DECLARATORYRELIEF 3
----------- -------_._..
,---------------- ----
25-2-126, MCA, since this is the county in which the Defendant City is located and since
the wrongful acts which are the subject of this action arose within this judicial district.
Facts Giving Rise to Action
7. On June 2, 2014, the Defendant Commissioners, acting for themselves and in
their official capacities for the Defendant City and its Commission, enacted the NOD,
Ordinance No. 1890, which is not intended, and does not purport to be limited, in any
manner, solely to regulating the acts or conduct of city employees, city affairs and/or its
local government but, instead, seeks to extend and apply expansively to individuals,
businesses, institutions and organizations residing or coming within its boundaries, for the
purpose ofbroadly regulating any discrimination that conceivably might be alleged in the
areas of employment, public accommodations and housing.
8. The defendants' passage and enactment of this controversial measure followed
several months ofpublic debate, and significant opposition thereto, which included the
Defendant Commissioners, the Bozeman City Manager and its City Attorney. having been
provided with legal opinions categorically advising against its passage due to its inherent
conflict with State law and its unavoidable incursion into State sovereignty in matters of
statewide concern.
9. Consequently, an actual controversy exists between $e plaintiffs and those
other concerned citizens and taxpayers similarly situated, on the one hand, and the
defendants on the other hand, arising out ofthe events hereinabove alleged. Specifically,
COMPLAINT AND PETITION FORDECLARATORY RELIEF 4
.
the plaintiffs contend that the defendants did not, and do not, have a viable legal basis for
enacting said ordinance; that the same is preempted, and rendered invalid, under State
law, while the defendants appear to maintain that they possess the power and authority to
have validly enacted this measure, albeit unclear as to the legal grounds conceivably
supporting the same.
10. It is, therefor, plaintiffs' position that, without limitation, the NDO clearly and
unequivocally violates and impinges on all ofthe following laws pertaining to limits on
the power of local governments; exclusivejurisdiction; the establishment of the judiciary
and the courts, and the legislature's authority to implement and regulate the scope of
relief affecting civil or private relationships; to wit:
a) The Mont. Canst., Art. XI, Section 6 [local government adopting a self-
goveming charter may not exercise p ~ r s othezwise proscribed by the
constitution or law];
b) Section 7-1-111(1), MCA [self-governing municipalities expressly
prohibited from exercising any power that applies to or affects any
private or civil relationship, except incident to the exercise of an
independent self-government power];
c) Section 7-1-111(13), MCA [self-governing municipality expressly
prohibited from exercising any power that applies to or affects landlords,
or othezwise regulating their activities with regard to tenants, beyond
what is provided in Title 70, Chapters 24 & 25 (the Mont. Residential
Landlord &Tenant Act)];
dJ Section 7-1-112(2), MCA [prohibiting local government power to
regulate private activity beyond its geographical limits];
e) Section 7-1-112(4), MeA, [local government prohibited from exercising
power over anyjudicial function, except incident to the exercise of an
COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 5
~ . . ~
independent self-government administrative power, unless such power
is specifically delegated by law];
f) Sections 7-1-113(1),(3), MCA, [local govermnent with self-governing
powers prohibited from exercising any power in a manner inconsistent
with state law or administrative regulation in any area afftrmatively
subjected by law to state regulation or control, where a state agency or
officer is directed to establish administrative rules goyeming ~
matter or ifthe enforcement ofstandards or requirements established .
by statute is vested in a state officer or agency];
g) The Montana Human Rights Act, Title 49, Chapter 2, and the Govenunent .
Code ofFair Practices, Title 49, Chapter 3 [provisions comprising
the exclusive remedy for acts ofdiscrimination, within the meaning of
49-1-102, MCA, with the Montana Human Rights Commission having
been vested withjurisdiction over such matters, and having 'been directed
by the State Legislature to establish, implement and enforce these laws,
as set forth in 49-2-204, MeA];
h) Mont. Const., Art. VII, Section 4 and Section 3-5-302, MCA [district courts
have original jurisdiction in all cases involving matters in equity];
i) Sections 3-6-103, 3-10-301 and 3-11-102, MCA [no corresponding
authority, pertaining to municipal court jurisdiction, to award or fashion
affinnative or equitable relief of any nature];
j) Sections 3-11-103(1),(2), MCA [municipal court jurisdiction limited, by
its very nature, to specified categories ofoffenses unrelated to anti-
discrimination legislation];
k) Section 7-1-4152, MCA [municipal court jurisdiction to potentially
impose affinnative reliefstrictly limited to orders ofabatement or
correction under the municipal infraction statute], and
I) In direct contravention of other clearly established state and civil rights
laws regarding the potential right to recover private litigation expenses,
otherwise expressly reserved to the district courts, by including therein a
"discretionary ... prevailing party" fee-shifting authorization for municipal
courts.
COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 6
f
11. Based on all ofthe above, plaintiffs seek a declaratoryjudgment with respect
to this controversy, and all other appropriate remedies available pursuant to the UDJA,
et seq. and, accordingly, ask that this honorable Court adjudge, declare and
decree that the enactment ofthe NDO was, and is, a nullity and invalid as a matter oflaw,
and that said defendants and each ofthem, are liable for the enactment ofthe same.
12. As a result of the unwarranted action ofthe defendants, plaintiffs have been
compelled to incur attorney's fees and costs in having to prosecute this action which, for
all intents and purposes, should have been unnecessary.
13. Accordingly, plaintiffs will ask that this honorable Court award their costs, in
accordance with MeA, as well as reasonable attorney's fees and any non-
statutory expenses as the Court; in its discretion, may impose consistent with the
supplemental relief provision of 27-8-313, MeA and/or under the private attorney
general doctrine.
PRAYERFOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against the defendants, and each of
them, as follows:
1. For an appropriate declaration or decree that the Bozeman NDD is invalid, as a
matter of law;
2. For an award of those reasonable attorney's fees necessarily incurred in
bringing this action, pursuant to statute and/or the private attorney general doctrine;
COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 7
1''' I ..
.-. . ..
3. For those costs and expenses incurred;
4. For pre-judgment interest on those sums expended, according to proof, and
5. For any further relief as this honorable Court may deemjust and proper.
DATED:
By:
Respectfully Submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF
MICHAEL J. SAN SOUCI
..
/II
III
III
Michael J. San Souci
Attorney for Plaintiffs & Petitioners
COMPLAINT AND PETITIONFORDECLARATORY RELIEF 8