G Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint

MATTHEW S.
PAPPAS (SBN: 171860)

2
CHARLES M. FARANO (SBN: 86915)
DAVID R. WELCH (SBN: 251693)
22641 Lake Forest Drive, #B5-107

"
3

Lake Forest, CA 92630
, r. ,-
-"

Phone: (949) 382-1485
:,.-
4
-I.'"
Facsimile: (949) 242-2605

,-
.
.
E-Mail : matt.pappas@mattpappaslaw.com
-
5

r ;
",
N
eo
- .
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
,.'
> .,
7
"
-
:
-.,
'"
,
'"
8
9
10
UNlTED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
w
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12 MARLA JAMES; KATHERINE
ALDRICH; and VlCTORIA PAPPAS,

<

13
14
<s:
.. - .....
v.
". 15
Plaintiffs,
-.-
- 0;' UNlTED STATES OF AMERICA; CITY
16 OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA; CITY
3_ 17 OF LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA; and
ERIC HOLDER, in his capacity as
18 Attorney General of the United States,
<
"
19
Defendants.
No. : SACY12.00280 JVS (RNBX)
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY RELIEF;
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; AND
VIOLATION OF THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION
JURlSDICTION AND VENUE
r
fl.
D
20
21
22
23
I. The claims raised by the Plaintiffs in this complaint are based on violation
24
of the United States Constitution. This Court has federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C.
25
1331, 1343(a), 2201, and 2202). Venue is proper because this is the district in which
26 all of the events giving rise to the Plaintiffs' claims occurred (28 U.S.C. 1391 [b]).
27 II
28 /I
VER IFIED 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
VERI FI ED COMPLAI NT
2
L
A
W

O
F
F
I
C
E

O
F

M
A
T
T
H
E
W

P
A
P
P
A
S
2
2
6
4
1
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
,
#
B
5
-
1
0
7

L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
(
9
4
9
)
3
8
2
-
1
4
8
5
PARTIES
2. Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (United States) is a
sovereign government established and operating under the United States Constitution.
3. Defendant ERIC HOLDER (HOLDER) is the Attorney General of
Defendant UNITED STATES.
4. Defendants CITY OF COSTA MESA (COSTA MESA) and CITY OF
LAKE FOREST (LAKE FOREST) are municipal entities incorporated under and
operating pursuant to the California state constitution.
5. Plaintiffs MARLA JAMES and VICTORIA PAPPAS (PAPPAS) are
residents of Orange County, California. Plaintiff KATHERINE ALDRICH
(ALDRICH) is a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
6. Plaintiffs JAMES and PAPPAS are individuals who suffer from severe
disability or permanent injury. Both are patients with recommendations for medical
cannabis from licensed California doctors. Plaintiffs JAMES, PAPPAS, and ALDRICH
are each at least or over the age of eighteen (18) and registered California voters.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
7. On June 21, 1788, the United States Constitution was ratified.
8. Article 1 of the United States Constitution established a geographical
district for the government of the United States (the District of Columbia) and provided
that Congress shall exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever in the
District. (U.S. Constitution, art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 17.)
9. On September 9, 1850, as part of the Compromise of 1850, the State of
California was admitted to the United States undivided as a free state.
10. In 1907, California enacted the Poison Act (Stats. 1913, Ch. 342) which
criminalized the possession of marijuana under state law.
11. On October 27, 1970, Congress enacted the federal Controlled Substances
Act (CSA) as Title 2 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of
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
3
L
A
W

O
F
F
I
C
E

O
F

M
A
T
T
H
E
W

P
A
P
P
A
S
2
2
6
4
1
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
,
#
B
5
-
1
0
7

L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
(
9
4
9
)
3
8
2
-
1
4
8
5
1970 (CDAPC), P.L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236 (Oct. 27, 1970). The CSA is codified at
21 U.S.C. 801, et. seq.
12. The CSA lists controlled substances in five (5) schedules. The CSA
prohibits possession, transportation, manufacture, distribution, and storage of controlled
substances listed on Schedule 1. 21 U.S.C. 812(b). Furthermore, substances listed on
Schedule 1 may not be prescribed by a physician. (21 U.S.C. 812(b).)
13. Marijuana is listed on Schedule 1 of the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 812(c)(c)(10).
Tetrahydrocannabinols, a component of marijuana, is also listed on Schedule 1 of the
CSA. (21 U.S.C. 812(c)(c)(17).)
14. On December 24, 1973, Congress enacted the District of Columbia Home
Rule Act. P.L. 93-198; 87 Stat. 777; D.C. Code 1-201, et. seq. (Dec. 24, 1973;
Amended Oct. 21, 1998.) In the Home Rule Act, Congress retains full plenary authority
over the District. (DC ST 1-206, Sec. 601.)
15. On November 5, 1996, pursuant to article 2 of their state constitution,
California voters enacted Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act (CUA),
providing for marijuana possession, personal cultivation, and use for seriously ill
Californians possessing a recommendation for medical cannabis made by a licensed
doctor. (Ca. Health and Safety Code 11362.5.)
16. On November 3, 1998, citizens in the federal District of Columbia voted to
approve D.C. Act 13-138, the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment ballot
initiative. (D.C. Initiative 59; Nov. 1998). Congress did not authorize the D.C. citizens
vote on Initiative 59.
17. On October 21, 1998, Congress enacted P.L. 105-277 (Stat. 2681-150), a
consolidated appropriations law, providing, at Sec. 171 (Section 171), [N]one of the
funds contained in this Act may be used to conduct any ballot initiative which seeks to
legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution
of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) or any
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
4
L
A
W

O
F
F
I
C
E

O
F

M
A
T
T
H
E
W

P
A
P
P
A
S
2
2
6
4
1
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
,
#
B
5
-
1
0
7

L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
(
9
4
9
)
3
8
2
-
1
4
8
5
tetrahydrocannabinols derivative. Section 171 was passed after ballots for the 1998
election had been printed resulting in Initiative 59 being left on the printed ballots.
18. The federal District Court in Turner v. D.C. Bd. of Elections and Ethics, 77
F. Supp. 2d 25, 31 (D.D.C. 1999) (Turner) held Congresss Section 171 prohibition in
P.L. 105-277 impermissibly violated the First Amendment to the Constitution.
19. On November 29, 1999, in response to the Turner decision, Congress used
its art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 17 plenary power over the District of Columbia to include Section
167(b) of P.L. 106-113, (113 Stat. 1530) (Section 167(b)), providing, [T]he
Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998, also known as
Initiative 59, approved by the electors of the District of Columbia on November 3, 1998,
shall not take effect.
20. In 2003, the California Legislature approved S.B. 420, the Medical
Marijuana Program Act (MMPA), providing for, inter alia, the collective and
cooperative cultivation, transportation, distribution, and storage of medical marijuana.
(Ca. Health and Safety Code 11362.775; eff. 1/2004.)
21. On July 10, 2009, the United States House of Representatives published its
report on H.R. 3170 (111
th
Session, 2009) providing, [T]he measure [H.R. 3170
amended] allows the District to conduct and implement a referendum on use of
marijuana for medical purposes, as has been done in various states. (H.Rpt. 111-202 at
p. 8 (July 10, 2009).)
22. In H.Rept. 111-202, Congress further provided P.L. 111-117, does not
continue to suspend implementation of the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical
Treatment Initiative of 1998. (H.Rept. 111-202, supra, at p. 107.)
23. On December 17, 2009, after being approved by both the House of
Representatives and U.S. Senate, President Obama signed P.L. 111-117 (H.R. 3170).
24. On December 21, 2009, the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical
Treatment Initiative approved by Washington D.C. voters in 1998 was submitted by the
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
5
L
A
W

O
F
F
I
C
E

O
F

M
A
T
T
H
E
W

P
A
P
P
A
S
2
2
6
4
1
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
,
#
B
5
-
1
0
7

L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
(
9
4
9
)
3
8
2
-
1
4
8
5
District of Columbia local government to both houses of Congress pursuant to the
District of Columbia Home Rule Act. (D.C. Act 13-138; Nov., 1998).
25. D.C. Act 13-138 became D.C. Law 13-315 on February 25, 2010, and is
published at 57 DCR 3360.
26. In May, 2010, D.C. Law 18-210, the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical
Treatment Amendment Act, included proposed amendments to D.C. Law 13-315 and was
approved unanimously by the District of Columbia City Council. On May 21, 2010, the
Mayor of the District of Columbia signed the law which was then assigned D.C. Act No.
18-429. Thereafter, D.C. Act No 18-429 was transmitted to both houses of Congress and
became effective July 27, 2010. (Feb. 25, 2010, D.C. Law 13-315, 2, as added July 27,
2010, D.C. Law 18-210, 2, 57 DCR 4798.) After passage, the District law was codified
at DC ST 7-1671, et. seq.
27. On December 2, 2011, the District of Columbia promulgated final
rulemaking for DC ST 7-1671 and the laws implementing regulations. (See D.C. Reg.
22-C1 through 22-C200, Notice of Final Rulemaking published at 58 DCR 10128,
10137.)
28. Plaintiff Marla James suffers from, among other ailments, necrotizing
fasciitis removal, diabetes, and blindness. Plaintiff JAMES is wheelchair bound. Opiate-
based drugs cause her to suffer debilitating side effects. Accordingly, her licensed doctor
recommended medical cannabis for her.
29. Plaintiff JAMES is a patient member of medical cannabis patient
collectives in the City of Costa Mesa, California. The collectives that Plaintiff JAMES is
a member of operate in full conformance with California law and regulations including,
but not limited to, the CUA and MMPA. Furthermore, the collectives Plaintiff JAMES is
a member of consist of groups of seriously ill, disabled, and injured patients who are
mutual beneficiaries of and participants in the collective operation.
30. In April, 2010, Plaintiff JAMES, along with three other disabled
individuals, filed suit in U.S. District Court against Defendant cities COSTA MESA and
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
6
L
A
W

O
F
F
I
C
E

O
F

M
A
T
T
H
E
W

P
A
P
P
A
S
2
2
6
4
1
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
,
#
B
5
-
1
0
7

L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
(
9
4
9
)
3
8
2
-
1
4
8
5
LAKE FOREST seeking relief under Title 2 of 42 U.S.C. 12101, the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). (James, et. al. v. City of Costa Mesa, et al., (2010) No.
SACV10-00402 AG (MLGx).) In their complaint, the disabled Plaintiffs alleged that the
complete ban of and related actions to eliminate medical marijuana collectives by the
Defendant cities impermissibly violated applicable provisions of the ADA.
31. After filing suit, the disabled Plaintiffs sought an order from the District
Court enjoining the Defendant cities from enforcing their respective bans of medical
marijuana collectives and from engaging in police or civil actions to force closure of
patient collectives.
32. In May, 2010, the District Court denied the preliminary injunction
requested by the disabled Plaintiffs. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs appealed the denial of the
injunction to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Marla James, et al. v. City of
Costa Mesa, et al., (2010) No. 10-55769.)
33. On January 18, 2012, the United States Attorney for the Central District of
California issued letters to patient collectives in Costa Mesa, California, including, but
not limited to, the patient collectives that Plaintiff JAMES is a member of. In the letters,
the U.S. Attorney states that there is no medical marijuana under federal law, orders the
collectives to cease and desist, and provides that civil or criminal action will be taken if
the groups do not stop all marijuana activities.
34. After receiving the letters from the United States Attorney, the collectives
that Plaintiff JAMES is a member of in Costa Mesa stopped operating.
35. Plaintiff ALDRICH is registered to vote and lives in the city of Long
Beach, California. In March, 2010, the City Council of Long Beach passed an ordinance
permitting and regulating medical marijuana collectives.
36. In May, 2011, Plaintiff PAPPAS was critically injured in an assault while
visiting the State of Nevada. Plaintiff PAPPAS underwent emergency brain surgery
following the assault and was placed in a hospital critical care unit for several weeks
while in a coma.
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
7
L
A
W

O
F
F
I
C
E

O
F

M
A
T
T
H
E
W

P
A
P
P
A
S
2
2
6
4
1
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
,
#
B
5
-
1
0
7

L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
(
9
4
9
)
3
8
2
-
1
4
8
5
37. In June, 2011, Plaintiff PAPPAS, while recovering from brain surgery and
the injuries she suffered as a result of being assaulted, used an opiate based pain
medication prescribed by her doctor. After a period of use of the opiate based
medication, Plaintiff PAPPAS suffered side-effects and discomfort related to the opiate
medicine. She also felt that she was becoming dependent on the opiate drug.
38. Instead of seeking a prescription refill of the opiate medication, Plaintiff
PAPPAS instead used medical cannabis recommended by her doctor and that she
obtained from medical marijuana patient collectives in Lake Forest, California and
subsequently obtained from collectives in Long Beach, California. Plaintiff PAPPAS
continues to periodically use medical cannabis as she recovers from the severe and life-
threatening injuries she suffered in May, 2011.
39. In or around October, 2011, the United States Attorney for the Central
District of California issued letters to patient collectives in Lake Forest, California,
including, but not limited to, the patient collectives that Plaintiff PAPPAS obtained
medication through via her authorized caregiver. In the letters, the U.S. Attorney states
that there is no medical marijuana under federal law, orders the collectives to cease and
desist, and provides that civil or criminal action will be taken if the groups do not stop all
marijuana activities.
40. After receiving the letters from the United States Attorney, the collectives
that Plaintiff PAPPAS obtained her medication through in Lake Forest, California
stopped operating.
41. After losing access to the patient collectives in Lake Forest, California,
Plaintiff PAPPAS became a member of medical marijuana patient collectives in the City
of Long Beach, California.
42. Plaintiff ALDRICH is a designated personal caregiver for Plaintiff
PAPPAS and has provided regular assistance in her recovery since the May, 2011 assault.
Plaintiff ALDRICH participates in the collective process provided under California law
as part of her caregiver activities for Plaintiff PAPPAS.
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
8
L
A
W

O
F
F
I
C
E

O
F

M
A
T
T
H
E
W

P
A
P
P
A
S
2
2
6
4
1
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
,
#
B
5
-
1
0
7

L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
(
9
4
9
)
3
8
2
-
1
4
8
5
43. On October 4, 2011, regulations permitting and governing the operation of
medical marijuana patient collectives in the city of Long Beach were deemed preempted
by federal law by a California appeals court.
44. On February 14, 2012, the Long Beach, California City Council, in
response to the appellate court decision striking parts of its medical marijuana permit law,
enacted a total ban of all medical marijuana patient collectives in the city of Long Beach.
45. On February 16, 2012, the patient collective that plaintiff PAPPAS is a
member of received a cease and desist letter from the City of Long Beach. Loss of
medication access by PAPPAS and through her authorized personal caregiver ALDRICH
is now directly threatened by the closure of all collectives in Long Beach, California.
46. Plaintiff JAMES is informed and believes, and based upon such
information and belief alleges, that in or around November, 2011, the Mayor of
Defendant COSTA MESA contacted representatives of Defendant UNITED STATES
and asked the UNITED STATES to send letters to the patient collectives in that city
ordering the collectives to shut-down.
47. Plaintiff PAPPAS is informed and believes, and based upon such
information and belief alleges, that in or around September, 2011, officials and
representatives of Defendant LAKE FOREST contacted representatives of Defendant
UNITED STATES and asked the UNITED STATES to send letters to patient collectives
in that city ordering the collectives to shut-down.
48. On January 26, 2012, the plaintiffs in James, et al. v. Costa Mesa, et al.,
supra, filed an F.R.A.P. Rule 27-3 Emergency Motion in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals seeking to enjoin the UNITED STATES from threatening to close and then
closing, through civil or criminal action, patient collectives in the City of Costa Mesa.
The Ninth Circuit denied the motion finding it did not have jurisdiction over the UNITED
STATES in that case. The Court further ordered that the plaintiffs could file a separate
action in U.S. District Court naming the UNITED STATES as a defendant.
//
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
L
A
W

O
F
F
I
C
E

O
F

M
A
T
T
H
E
W

P
A
P
P
A
S
2
2
6
4
1
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
,
#
B
5
-
1
0
7

L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
(
9
4
9
)
3
8
2
-
1
4
8
5
FIRST CLAIM
DECLARATORY RELIEF (28 U.S.C. 2201)
49. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-48 of this Complaint.
50. An actual controversy exists between the Plaintiffs and the UNITED
STATES that requires the Court to determine whether the UNITED STATES has
impermissibly denied the Plaintiffs the fundamental right to vote in contravention of the
United States Constitution. Additionally, an actual controversy exists between the
Plaintiffs and the UNITED STATES that requires the Court to determine whether the
UNITED STATES has a rational basis for applying its federal Controlled Substances Act
as that law relates to medical marijuana differently to citizens in the federal District of
Columbia than it does to citizens in the several states that have enacted medical
marijuana laws.
51. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiff JAMES and Defendant
UNITED STATES that requires the Court to determine whether, by sending its January
18, 2012 letters, Defendant UNITED STATES improperly ordered shutdown of Costa
Mesa medical marijuana collectives operating in conformance with California law in
contravention of the Fifth Amendments equal protection provisions that apply to the
federal government and in contravention of the Fifth Amendments substantive and
procedural due process provisions.
52. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration in respect to whether the UNITED
STATES has denied them a fundamental voting right. Likewise, Plaintiff JAMES is
entitled to a declaration as to whether Defendant UNITED STATES January 18, 2012
cease and desist letters improperly ordered shutdown of the Costa Mesa patient
collectives she is a member of. Plaintiff PAPPAS is entitled to a declaration as to
whether Defendant UNITED STATES cease and desist letters improperly ordered
shutdown of the Lake Forest patient collectives.
//
//
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
10
L
A
W

O
F
F
I
C
E

O
F

M
A
T
T
H
E
W

P
A
P
P
A
S
2
2
6
4
1
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
,
#
B
5
-
1
0
7

L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
(
9
4
9
)
3
8
2
-
1
4
8
5
SECOND CLAIM
(DEFENDANT UNITED STATES ONLY)
Equal Protection, Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution
(Fundamental Right to Vote)
54. When it enacted P.L. 111-117 in December, 2009, the UNITED STATES
allowed the citizens of the District to conduct and implement a referendum on
Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment.
55. The citizens of Washington D.C. included DC ST 7-1671.06(a) in the Act
which provides that medical marijuana dispensaries are authorized to provide medical
marijuana to qualified patients.
56. The citizens of Washington D.C. included DC ST 7-1671.06(b) in the Act
which provides that medical marijuana cultivation centers are authorized to grow medical
marijuana and distribute it to authorized Washington D.C. dispensaries.
57. Congress did not author the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical
Treatment act voted on and approved by Washington D.C. voters. Rather, it gave the
voters of Washington D.C. the right to conduct a referendum (vote) and thereafter
implement the District authored law.
58. Congress has plenary power over the District of Columbia and is the federal
legislature. While it may take action that is different and distinct for the District of
Columbia, its actions are always constrained by and subject to the requirements of the
United States Constitution. The right to vote is fundamental and subject to strict scrutiny
analysis for purposes of equal protection.
59. California voters approved medical marijuana use, possession, and personal
cultivation in 1996. The California Legislature approved medical marijuana cultivation,
distribution, transportation, and storage in 2003.
60. On January 18, 2012, the UNITED STATES sent letters to the collectives
that Plaintiff James is a member of in the City of Costa Mesa providing that all marijuana
is illegal under federal law and stating specifically that, United States law takes
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
11
L
A
W

O
F
F
I
C
E

O
F

M
A
T
T
H
E
W

P
A
P
P
A
S
2
2
6
4
1
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
,
#
B
5
-
1
0
7

L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
(
9
4
9
)
3
8
2
-
1
4
8
5
precedence over State law and applies regardless of the particular uses for which a
dispensary is selling and distributing marijuana. The letters made clear there is no
medical marijuana under federal law. In the letters, the UNITED STATES ordered the
collectives to shut-down immediately or face criminal charges, civil action, or both based
on total marijuana prohibition under the federal Controlled Substances Act.
61. Unlike California, Washington D.C. is not a state and is not subject to the
provisions of art. 6, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution. Consequently, Washington
D.C.s Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment law is not preempted by the
federal Controlled Substances Act. Actions of Congress, unlike state legislatures, are not
subject to art. 6, cl. 2 Supremacy Clause preemption. Accordingly, the actions of
Congress in December, 2009 enabled the voters of Washington D.C. to fully legalize and
approve medical marijuana.
62. States are subject to art. 6, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution. Unlike
voters granted the right to vote on medical marijuana legalization in the District of
Columbia, state voters are treated unequally and do not have the right to vote-on,
approve, and implement medical marijuana because Congress has preempted their ability
to do so through the federal Controlled Substances Act. State voters are disenfranchised
because any vote cast to allow, authorize, or legalize medical marijuana is without
effect under art. 6, cl. 2 of the federal Constitution.
63. When Congress granted the right to conduct a vote on and then to legalize
medical marijuana in the federal District of Columbia, it was required to afford that same
fundamental right to vote to state citizens and legislatures. The art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 17
authority Congress used to prevent medical marijuana in Washington D.C. is analogous
to its art. 6, cl.2 (Supremacy Clause) authority over the states.
64. The provisions of the federal Controlled Substances Act being enforced by
the UNITED STATES as evidenced by its January 18, 2012 letters operate to
disenfranchise California voters including ALDRICH, JAMES, and PAPPAS. However,
as of December, 2009, the federal Controlled Substances Act no longer operates to
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
12
L
A
W

O
F
F
I
C
E

O
F

M
A
T
T
H
E
W

P
A
P
P
A
S
2
2
6
4
1
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
,
#
B
5
-
1
0
7

L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
(
9
4
9
)
3
8
2
-
1
4
8
5
disenfranchise Washington D.C. voters. Hence, Californians are not equally protected
under the law and insofar as those federal provisions operate unequally, they are
unenforceable and constitutionally invalid. Moreover, the operation of federal law that is
not applicable in Washington D.C. has operated to invalidate and take away all effect of
the vote of ALDRICH and her elected city government representatives in the City of
Long Beach by preempting that citys law that sought to permit medical marijuana
collectives operating in full compliance with California law.
65. To the extent Washington D.C. citizens were granted the right to vote-on
and approve medical marijuana laws not subject to art. 6, cl. 2 preemption because the
federal District is not a state and because Congress removed its art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 17
prohibition, the medical marijuana laws Congress allowed the voters of Washington D.C.
to vote-on and approve are defenses to general federal law, including the federal
Controlled Substances Act in the federal District. The claim by the UNITED STATES in
its January 18, 2012 letters providing state medical marijuana laws are not defenses to
federal law are improper because the voters of California must be equally protected under
the law. Likewise, the claims by federal authorities that there is no medical marijuana
under federal law are improper and without basis. Accordingly, in the same way voter
approved medical marijuana provisions in Washington D.C. operate to protect citizens in
the federal District, similar state laws operate as defenses for state citizens.
THIRD CLAIM
(Rational Basis)
66. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-48 and paragraphs 54-57 of this
Complaint.
67. Congress allowed the District of Columbia to conduct and implement and
referendum on Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment law as has been done
in several states.
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
13
L
A
W

O
F
F
I
C
E

O
F

M
A
T
T
H
E
W

P
A
P
P
A
S
2
2
6
4
1
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
,
#
B
5
-
1
0
7

L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
(
9
4
9
)
3
8
2
-
1
4
8
5
68. The District of Columbia is not a state. Congress has plenary power over
the District. District laws are not subject to art. 6, cl. 2 Supremacy Clause preemption
because: 1) the District is not a state; and 2) its legislature is Congress, a branch of the
federal sovereign.
69. The federal Controlled Substances Act deems marijuana has no medical
value.
70. District citizens are protected from federal Controlled Substances Act
violations when in full compliance with DC ST 7-1671, et seq., the Districts medical
marijuana legalization law. Congress knowingly allowed the District to vote-on and
implement its medical marijuana law. It recognized medical marijuana and the medical
value of marijuana when it approved the Districts laws under P.L. 111-117 and then
through its Home Rule Act powers. On the other hand, California citizens, as evidenced
by the January 18, 2012 letters from the UNITED STATES, are not protected. Contrary
to Congresss position in Washington D.C. where there is medical marijuana, the
UNITED STATES January 18, 2012 letters provide that there is no medical marijuana
in the State of California under federal law.
71. There is no rational basis for deeming marijuana medically useful in the
District of Columbia and not medically useful in California. Additionally, Congress
made no such explicit determination.
72. There is no rational basis for determining that marijuana can have medical
value in Washington D.C. but not in California. Additionally, Congress made no such
explicit determination.
73. There is no rational basis for allowing the District of Columbia to conduct
and implement a referendum on legalization of medical marijuana in-part based on the
fact that several states had medical marijuana laws and then to withhold protection from
state voters under their laws.
74. There is no rational basis for the United States to protect District of
Columbia citizens under the CSA differently than it protects California citizens.
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
14
L
A
W

O
F
F
I
C
E

O
F

M
A
T
T
H
E
W

P
A
P
P
A
S
2
2
6
4
1
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
,
#
B
5
-
1
0
7

L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
(
9
4
9
)
3
8
2
-
1
4
8
5
FOURTH CLAIM
(Rational Basis)
Complaint.
76. Unlike Washington D.C., the City of Long Beach is unable to include
medical marijuana authorization and permitting provisions in its City law because
citizens of Long Beach are treated differently under the law than citizens of Washington
D.C. Namely, while the District of Columbias laws are not subject to preemption by the
CSA, Long Beachs laws are.
77. Congress allowed the citizens of Washington D.C. to vote-on and
implement medical marijuana legalization, regulation, and permitting laws when it
enacted P.L. 111-117 in December, 2009. On the other hand, it has prevented Long
Beach from doing the same.
78. Medical marijuana patients in Washington D.C. are protected from CSA
liability through DC ST 7-1671, et seq., the Districts medical marijuana law. Long
Beach medical marijuana patients are not protected from CSA liability through either
California or Long Beach law.
79. Plaintiff PAPPAS has been adversely affected by the different and adverse
treatment of the patient collectives she is a member of in Long Beach because those
collectives have been ordered to shut-down based on federal preemption.
80. Plaintiff ALDRICH has been treated differently than voters in Washington
D.C. because her elected representatives are unable to vote on regulations, permits, and
controls on medical marijuana as a result of federal preemption.
81. There is no rational basis for the different and reduced protection provided
for ALDRICH and PAPPAS under the law.
//
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
15
L
A
W

O
F
F
I
C
E

O
F

M
A
T
T
H
E
W

P
A
P
P
A
S
2
2
6
4
1
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
,
#
B
5
-
1
0
7

L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
(
9
4
9
)
3
8
2
-
1
4
8
5
FIFTH CLAIM
(DEFENDANTS COSTA MESA AND LAKE FOREST ONLY)
42 U.S.C. 1983 (Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution)
Complaint.
83. By requesting that Defendant UNITED STATES order shutdown of patient
collectives within their respective cities, Defendants COSTA MESA and LAKE
FOREST have acted to deprive Plaintiffs JAMES, WASHINGTON, DeJONG, and
PAPPAS of their constitutional right to equal protection under the law in contravention of
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
FOREST have acted to deprive Plaintiffs JAMES and PAPPAS of their constitutional
right to equal protection under the law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution.
right to due process in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
SIXTH CLAIM
(DEFENDANTS COSTA MESA AND LAKE FOREST ONLY)
42 U.S.C. 1983 (Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution)
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
16
L
A
W

O
F
F
I
C
E

O
F

M
A
T
T
H
E
W

P
A
P
P
A
S
2
2
6
4
1
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
,
#
B
5
-
1
0
7

L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
(
9
4
9
)
3
8
2
-
1
4
8
5
right to equal protection under the law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution.
right to substantive due process under the law in contravention of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
right to procedural due process in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution.
SEVENTH CLAIM
(DEFENDANTS UNITED STATES AND COSTA MESA)
(42 U.S.C. 1983, Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process, as to Costa Mesa)
(Fifth Amendment, Due Process, as to United States)
Complaint.
91. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based upon such information and
belief allege that Defendants COSTA MESA and UNITED STATES acted in concert
with each other in sending the aforementioned closure and forfeiture letters to collectives
in Costa Mesa.
92. Under California law, patient collectives are non-profit entities consisting
of their individual patient members. Plaintiff JAMES is a member of Costa Mesa
collectives that received letters in Costa Mesa, California.
93. The aforementioned closure and forfeiture letters sent to collectives in
Costa Mesa that JAMES is a member of provided no basis for the collectives or its
respective patient members to be heard on, answer, address, or defend against criminal,
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
17
L
A
W

O
F
F
I
C
E

O
F

M
A
T
T
H
E
W

P
A
P
P
A
S
2
2
6
4
1
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
,
#
B
5
-
1
0
7

L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
(
9
4
9
)
3
8
2
-
1
4
8
5
civil, and property taking charges or demands for immediate closure included in the
letters. Accordingly, as to defendant UNITED STATES, the letters impermissibly violate
the procedural due process provisions of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
94. The aforementioned closure and forfeiture letters sent to collectives in
Costa Mesa that JAMES is a member of provided no basis for the collectives or their
respective patient members to be heard on, answer, address, or defend against the
UNITED STATES demand for immediate closure. The collectives, including their
respective patient members, including Plaintiff JAMES, have a property right and interest
in the improved real property locations of the patient collectives groups. Accordingly, as
to defendant UNITED STATES, the letters impermissibly violate the takings provisions
of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
95. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based upon such information and
belief allege that the aforementioned closure and forfeiture letters sent to collectives in
Costa Mesa were requested by Defendant COSTA MESA. The closure and forfeiture
letters sent to collectives in Costa Mesa that JAMES is a member of provided no basis for
the collectives or its respective patient members to be heard on, answer, address, or
defend criminal, civil, and property taking charges or demands for immediate closure.
Accordingly, as to defendant COSTA MESA, the letters impermissibly violate the
procedural due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
EIGHTH CLAIM
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
97. As a direct result of the UNITED STATES actions as well as threatened
actions, plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm. The patient
collectives that disabled Plaintiffs JAMES and PAPPAS are members of in Lake Forest
and Costa Mesa have been closed. Both disabled Plaintiffs are severely restricted from or
unable to access medication through the collective process and are suffering. Both
Plaintiffs must now travel outside of the cities they live in to access medication. The
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
18
L
A
W

O
F
F
I
C
E

O
F

M
A
T
T
H
E
W

P
A
P
P
A
S
2
2
6
4
1
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
,
#
B
5
-
1
0
7

L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
(
9
4
9
)
3
8
2
-
1
4
8
5
patient collectives that PAPPAS now travels to are approximately sixty miles round-trip
for her. Moreover, the patient collectives in Long Beach have now been ordered to close
because of a court decision finding that the permitting provisions of that citys law were
federally preempted.
98. Not only have and will plaintiffs suffer irreparable injury, Plaintiffs have no
plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law, thereby rendering declaratory relief and
preliminary and permanent injunctions appropriate. Money damages will not adequately
compensate Plaintiffs for the denial of their constitutional rights and civil liberties and if
defendants are not enjoined, a multiplicity of lawsuits will be required because Defendant
UNITED STATES unlawful conduct is continuous and ongoing and not only affects
Plaintiffs but other citizens similarly situated. Also, the denial of access to medication
has been deemed irreparable harm by federal courts. The denial of access to medication
and the resulting damage to the Plaintiffs cannot be adequately remedied through
pecuniary compensation.
99. The UNITED STATES has no rational basis for claiming it will be
adversely affected by any injunctive relief against it in this case because it has: 1)
allowed medical marijuana in Washington D.C.; 2) recognized medical marijuana; and
3) acknowledged state medical marijuana laws when allowing medical marijuana in the
District of Columbia.
100. The UNITED STATES has no basis for denying the Plaintiffs fundamental
right to vote-on and enact medical marijuana legalization. The fundamental right to vote
was taken from Plaintiff ALDRICH when the City of Long Beachs medical marijuana
permitting and regulating law was deemed invalid because it was preempted by the
federal CSA in October, 2011 and thereafter repealed by that citys governing legislature.
Unlike District of Columbia citizens, Plaintiffs ALDRICH, PAPPAS, and JAMES are
being denied the fundamental right to vote to legalize medical marijuana. Medical
marijuana legalization been proposed in California legislation and ballot initiatives
previously. However, like ALDRICH and other citizens in Long Beach who had their
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
19
L
A
W

O
F
F
I
C
E

O
F

M
A
T
T
H
E
W

P
A
P
P
A
S
2
2
6
4
1
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
,
#
B
5
-
1
0
7

L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
(
9
4
9
)
3
8
2
-
1
4
8
5
medical marijuana law deemed federally preempted and then repealed because of
preemption, proposed state medical marijuana legalization proposals cannot be voted-on
or implemented by California or its cities because those laws have not, until now, been
able to survive federal preemption analysis. By giving the right to conduct and
implement their law on legalization of medical marijuana, Congress gave to voters in the
District of Columbia a right it has withheld from state voters. While Congress may create
different laws, regulations, and rights for the District of Columbia, it may not do so in
contravention of the U.S. Constitution and the fundamental rights guaranteed thereunder.
By denying Plaintiffs ALDRICH, PAPPAS, and JAMES equal protection of its laws in
respect to their fundamental right to vote, the UNITED STATES is violating the
Constitutions guarantees of substantive and procedural due process as well as equal
protection. The letters sent by the UNITED STATES to collectives in Costa Mesa and
Lake Forest make clear the UNITED STATES denial of equal protection under the law.
Such denial has caused and will continue to cause severe and irreparable harm to
ALDRICH, JAMES, and PAPPAS. It has and will cause severe and irreparable harm to
all California voters.
101. Given the allegations contained in this Complaint, Plaintiffs are likely to
prevail on the merits. Furthermore, the hardship to the UNITED STATES is minimal
when balanced against the harm the Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer. The
UNITED STATES has no rational basis for asserting marijuana has any more medical
benefit for seriously ill patients in Washington D.C. than it does for seriously ill patients
in California.
102. The UNITED STATES and defendant HOLDER should be ENJOINED
from asserting the CSA in a manner that disenfranchises state voters. The UNITED
STATES and defendant HOLDER should be ENJOINED from asserting the CSA in a
manner that prevents state citizens from raising full compliance with state medical
marijuana laws as a defense to the CSA. The UNITED STATES and defendant
HOLDER should be ENJOINED from denying that federal law recognizes state
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
20
L
A
W

O
F
F
I
C
E

O
F

M
A
T
T
H
E
W

P
A
P
P
A
S
2
2
6
4
1
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
,
#
B
5
-
1
0
7

L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
(
9
4
9
)
3
8
2
-
1
4
8
5
medical marijuana laws. The UNITED STATES and HOLDER should be ENJOINED
from ordering closure of California medical marijuana collectives that operate in full
compliance with California law.
103. Defendants COSTA MESA and LAKE FOREST should be ENJOINED
from seeking to use federal law as the sole basis for closure of patient collectives
operating in full compliance with California medical marijuana laws. Defendants
COSTA MESA and LAKE FOREST should be ENJOINED from eliciting letters from
the UNITED STATES ordering closure of medical marijuana collectives in those
California cities based on claims that there is no medical marijuana under federal law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following:
A. For the declaratory relief requested in this Complaint;
B. For the injunctive relief requested in this Complaint including, but not
limited to, a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent
injunction;
C. For damages in an amount to be proven at time of trial;
D. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs reasonable attorney fees;
E. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs costs of suit; and
F. Such other and further relief the Court deems proper.
DATED: __________________
______________________________________
MATTHEW PAPPAS
Attorney for Plaintiffs
2-22-2012
<
-
VERIFICATION
2
3 i, Marla James, am one of the Plaintiffs in this case. I am a citizen of the United
4 Stales and resident of the State of California. I have read the foregoing Verified
5
6
7
8
9
Complainl and declare under penally of perjury under the laws of the Un ited Stales of
America that the contents of the Verified Complaint that assert facts related to my claims
and my personal knowledge arc true and correct.
EXECUTED THIS 2. Iday of February, 2012 at ___
10 California, United States of Ameri ca:
II
12
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
\ HHH( \ no, ( 'hRI \ J '\H'o,
21
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
VERIFICATION
I, Katherine Aldrich, am one of the Plaintiffs in thi s casc. I am a citi zen of the
United States and resident of the State of California. I have read the foregoing Verified
Compl ai nt and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the contents of the Verified Complaint that assert facts related to my claims
and my personal knowl edge are true and correct.
EXECUTED THIS !J.( day of February, 2012 at '_0,-,1, -;4
10 California, United States of America:
II
12
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
\TlC)",,\IIHItl' t
23
UNITED STATE: COURT, CENTRAL. DISTRi Ct
CIVIL COVER SII EET
1 (a) PLAINTIFFS (Ch:1i: boil if you arc rep=cnling yoursc:lrO) DEFE",' DANTS
MARLA JAMES; KATHERINE ALDRICH; and VlcroRiA PAPPAS
UNITED STATES Of AMERICA; CITY OF COSTA MF.5A.CALIfORNIA;
CIn' OF LAKE FOREST, CALI FORNIA; and ERIC HOLDER, in bis c.pICity
as oflhe
(b) Anomc:ys (Finn Name:, and Tdephone Number. If you an: rqm:senting
)'\lUrKlf. provide s.amc.)
MArn-tEW PAPPAS (SHN: 11(860). CIIARLES M. FARANO(SBN: 869IS),
DA VIO R. WELOI (SON: 2S 1693). 2264 1 LAKE FOREST DRIVE. II' OSI 07
lAKE FOREST, CA 92630, (9-19) 3&21485
Anomeys (If Known)
II. BASIS OF J URJSDl CTION (Plxe an X in one boil only,) Uf. CITIZNSIllP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES For Diversity Cases Only
(Place an X in one boil fOt plainliff and one for dcfendanL)
o I U,S, OOVCTTll11ellt Plaintiff 0 3 Fedc:ral Questioo (U.S.
PT'
0"
PTF DO'
Govcm_nt Not a Party) Citi zen of This Stille
0' 0' Incorporated or Principal PIau D. O.
ofBU5iness in !his Scate
rl2 U,S, Govcmmcnt Defendant 0 " Diversity (Indiule Citizenship Ci!izcn of Anotha' StatC 02 02 Incorporated and Principal Place
0' 0 '
of Parties in Item 1II) ofBU5iness in Another State
Ci tizen or Subject of a Foreign Country 03 03 Foreign Nation 06 06
IV. ORIGIN (Place an X in one only.)
rtl Original
Proceoding
02 Removed from
State Coon
0 3 Remanded from 04 Reinstated or
R'"1""'"
o 5 from anomer dis!ric:t (specify): 06 Multi
DiSIrK:I
Litigation
o 7 Appeal 10 District
Judge from
Magistrate Judge
Appellate Coun
V. REQUESTED IN CO;l.t PI ,AINT: JURV DEMAND: 0 Yes !{No(a.eck 'Yes' only ifdemalldcd incomplainL)
C1...ASS ACTION ..-dff F.R.C,P. 23: 0 Ya rlNo o MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPl.AlNT: S
VI. CAUSE OJ' ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing.nd write a brief stalCmtnt ofcausc. Do not ei te juri.Jd.idional SWUtc5 uclu.sdiveQity.)
fiFTH AND FOURTEEr-mi AMENDMENTS, U.S. CONSTITlfIlON; 42 U.S.C. S. 19&3
VII NATURE OF SUIT( Place X til Ollf bOl oaly ) .
OntER ST A roms CONTRACT TORTI>
TO""
PRISONER LAllOR
0400 SUite Reapportionment 0 110 PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL PETITIONS DnO fair Labor Scandards
0410 Antitnl.!l 0120 Marine
0310 Airplane PROPERTY OSl O Motiontio Aa
0430 Banb and Banking o no MillerAa
o 31 S Airplane ProdI,W;l
0370 Otb:r fraud Vacate Sentence
0"<>
LaborlMgrnL
0.'" Comm=IICC
0'"
Negotiable Il\SlJ1lI1lCIIt
Liability 0)71 Truth in Lcnd.ina Habeas Corpus Reillions
o ISO Reco\'ery of
0120 Assault. Libel &:
0380 Otha' Pcnonal
0'"
0730 LaOOJlMgrnL
0'"
DcporWion &:
5 ..... ,
Property DamItIc OBS Death PCllllty Reporting&:
0 470 R.acli:eteu Influenced EnrotUment or
03,. fed. Employcn:'
0385 Property Damage Ol .. Mandamus! Disclomrc Act
and Corrupt Judgment
Liability
Product Liability
"",,,
0740 RailWllY Labor Aa
Orglllliutions 0151 Mcdio;:arc Act
0""
M.m.
BANKRUPTCY 0550 Civil Righlll o 190 Other Labor
0 480 Consumer Credi t o IS2 Recovery of Defaulted
0'"
Marine ProdI,W;l
0 422 Appeal 28 USC 0555 Prison Conditioo Litig8l:ion
Liability
0490 CablclSat TV StU&nl Loan
03"
Motor Vehicle
'"
fORFErrURE J 0191 Empl. Ret. Inc.
0810 Selective Service Vetel"llU)
0355 Motor Vehicle
0 42) Withdrawal 28 PgNALTY Security Act
o SSG Set:uritics/Commoditiesl 0153 Recovery of
ProdUCI Liability
USC 157 Q 610 Agri<::ulrure yROPERt..Y RIGHTS
Exchange Ovetpayment of
0'"
O\hcr Pcnoual
rJ, ..ciVIL IUGI ITS...- 0620 Other Food &. o 820 CopyrighlS
0875 Customer Challenge 12 OenefilS
Injury
441 Voting Dru, 0830 Palent
USC3410
0 ' "
Suiu
0362 PCJ$OlLIl Injury
0 442 Employment o 62S Drug Related 0840 Tradenwll:
0890 OthcrStatulOry ACliDIII
0'"
Other Contract
Med MalprKlicc
0443 llousin&lAcco- ScizuRof SOCIAL sECtiRrrv
o 891 AgricullIn.\ Ad. 0 195 ContrKt Product 0365 Personal Injury rnmodatiocu PropcfIy 21 USC 0861 HIA (1 39511)
a 892 Economic Stabiliution UlbHity Product l..iability 0444 Welfare
'"
0862 O!.ck Lung (923)
Ao 0 196 franchise
0""
Asbestos PmoRIl 0, American with
0'"
Liquor Laws 0863 D1WCJDIWW
0893 EllvironlDC'DtIIl Millen REAL PROPERTY injury Produo;I Disabilitia - 0 ... R.R. &0 Truck (405(&)
0894 Encr&Y AlIocltion Atl o 21 0 Land Condcmnalion Employment
0'"
Airline Regs 0864 SSID Tille XVI
0895 freedom of Info. Act 0220 fDnlC11IiSUn In. IMMIGRATIO.!'i
06 Americaa with 0 ... RSI(40S(g))
0900 Appeal of Fcc Octcrrni o 230 Rent Lease &. Ejectment
a 462 Natunolizlrion
DiAbiliries - Sl fcry JHealth flW..J.RAL TAX SUITS
IlItion Ullm Equal 0240 Toru to LInd
ApplicWon
""'"
0'"
""'"
0870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
AIXCSI to Justice: 0245 Tort Product Liability
046'
....... """'""
044(1 OIbcrCivil or Defendaot)
0''''
ConitilUlionality of o 290 All Otbcr RnI I'ro!xrty
Alien Dctaiocc
Righb 0871 lRS-Third Party 26
SIIIc Stltutes
0.., Other Immiprion
USC 7609
A-.
SACY12-00280 JVS (RNBx)
fOROFFlCUSEONLV: CaseNumbcr: ________________________ _
AFfER COMPLETING TIlE FRO"'. SIDE OF FORM CV71, COl\fPLt:TE TIfE lNFORMA TION REQUESTED BELOW.
CV11 (OSlO8) CIVIL COVER SUEEr Fige 1 ofl
UNITED STATEt '- COURT, CENTRAL DlSTRJCl
CIVrL COVER SHEET
UFORNIA
VIII (II). IDEfIoTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this coun and dismissed, remanded orclO!;Cd? II'No 0 Yes
[fyes, lisl case numbcJ1s): __________________________________________________ _
VIl I(b), RELATED CASES: Have lilly cases been previously filed in this coun thai arc related 10 the presenl case? 0 No riYes
[f yes, list case numbcr(s): SACV 1000402 AG (MLGx)
Civil cases Ire deemed rellted if II previous ly fil ed elSe I nd the present use:
(Check all bo)(es thai apply) A. Arise from the same: or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or
'iiiB. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or
Ii C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges; or
o D. Involve the same palent, lrademark or copyright,!ill! one of the faclors identified above in a, b or c also is present.
IX. VENUE: (When completi ng the following information, use an additional sheet if necessary.)
(I) List Ihe County in this District; California County outsidc of this Districl; Stale if other than California: or Foreign Country, in which EACII named plaintiff resides.
0 Check here if the governmenl, its agencies or employees is a named plainliff. Iflhis box is checked, go to item (b).
Counl}' in this District: California County outside of this District; State, if other than C.lifornia: or Foreign Country
ORANGE COUNTY (JAMES); ORANGE COUNTY (PAPPAS); LOS
ANGELES COUNTY (ALDRICH)
(b) List the County in this District; California County outside oflhis Districr; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named defendant resides.
51 Check here if the J:ovemment, its agencies or employees is a named defendant. Irthis bolt is checked, J:O to item (c).
County in this District: California Counly outside of Ibis District; Stale, if other than California; or Foreign Country
(e) List the County in this Disl1ict; California County outside ofthi5 District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH claim arose.
Note' 10 laod condemnation cases use the locatioo of the tract of la nd involved ,
Counl}' in IhU District: California County outside of this District; State, ifother than California; or Foreign Counl!)'
ORANGE COUNTY ( 1 S1); ORANGE & L.A. COUNTY (2ND):
ORANGE COUNTY (3RO); L.A. COUNTY (4TH); ORANGE COUNTY
(5TH 7TH): ORANGE & L.A. COUNTY (8TH)
Los Angeles, Ora oge, San Bernlrdino, River side, Ventura,
In land condemnation eases 1l.'IC the location of lract a
a nta Barbal'l, or San Lui s Obispo Counties
d involved
X. S[GNATURE OF AITQRNEY (OR PRO PER): _____ D.te __ __ _______ _
Notice to CounselfPll rties: The CV? I (15..44) Civil Cover Shetland the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the fil ing and service ofplcadings
or other papersas required by law. This form, approved bythdudicial Conference of the United. StatCli in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 31 iSDOI filed
but is used by the Clerk oftheCoun for the purpose of statistics, venue and initialing the civil docket sheet. (Formore detailed insJructi ons, see $CpIJ1Ite insJructions sheet.)
Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases:
Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation
861 HIA
862 BL
863 DlWC
863 Dl WW
864 SSlD
,.,
. SI
CV.71 (05108)
Statement of Cause of Action
All claims for health ins urance benefits (Medicare) under Tide 18, Part A. of the Social Security Act, as amended.
AIIlO, include claims by hospitals, ski lled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers ofserviees under the
program. (42 U.S.C. 1935FF(b
All claims for Lung" beoofits under Tille 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.
(30 U.s.C. 923)
An claims filed by insured won:ers for disability insurance benefi ts under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as
amended; plus all claims filed for child's insurance benefilS based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405(g
All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 oflbe Social Security
Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405(g
All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Tille 16 of the Social Security
Act, as amended
All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 or lhe Social Security Act, as IIIlICndcd (42
U.S.C.(g
CIVIL COVER SHEET Page 2 of2
Name & Address:
MATrHEW PAPPAS (SBN: 171860)
CHARLES FARANO (SBN: 86915)
DAVID WELCH (SBN: 251693)
22641 LAKE FOREST DR., #B5- 1 07
LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 [(949) 382-1485]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MARLA JAMES; KATHERINE ALDRICH; and
VICTORIA PAPPAS,
PLAINTIFF(S)
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; CITY OF COSTA
MESA, CALLFORNlA; CITY OF LAKE FOREST,
CALLFORNlA; and ERIC HOLDER, in his capacity as
Attorney General of the United States, DEFENDANT(S).
CASE NUMBER
SACV12-00280 JVS (RNax)
SUMMONS
TO: DEFENDANT(S): UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 60 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), you
must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached 00 complaint 0 amended complaint
o counterclaim 0 cross-claim or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer
or motion must be served on the plaintiff's attorney, MATTHEW PAPPAS , whose address is
22641 LAKE FOREST DR .. #B5-107. LAKE FOREST. CA 92630 . If you fail to do so,
judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file
your answer or motion with the court.
Clerk, U.S. District Court
~ B 22 2012
Dated: __________ _
AM.Y DeAVilA
By: __________ _
Deputy Clerk
(Seal of the Court)
(Use 60 days if the defendant is the United States or a United Stales agency. or is an officer or employee of the United Slales. Allowed
60 day, by Rule 12(a)(3)].
CV..(lIA (10111 SUMMONS
Name & Address:
MATTHEW PAPPAS (SBN: 171 860)
CHARLES FARANO (SBN: 869 15)
DA VID WELCH (SBN: 251693)
22641 LAKE FOREST DR., #B5- 107
LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 [(949) 382-1485]
CENTRAL DISTRI CT OF CALIFORNIA
MARLA JAMES; KATHERINE ALDRJCH; and
VICTORlA PAPPAS,
PLArNTIFF(S)
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERI CA; CITY OF COSTA
MESA, CALIFORNLA; CITY OF LAKE FOREST,
CALI FORNIA; and ERIC HOLDER, in hi s capacity as
Attorney General of the United States, DEFENDANT(S).
CASE NUMBER
SUMMONS
TO: DEFE DANT(S): CITY OF LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached 1KI complaint 0 amended complaint
o counterclaim 0 cross-cl aim or a mot ion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer
or motion must be served on the plaintiff's attorney, MATTHEW PAPPAS , whose address is
2264 1 LAKE FOREST DR .. #B5- 107, LAKE FOREST. CA 92630 . If you fail to do so,
your answer or moti on with the court.
Dated: ____ " ....... ,. '-", '--' '''" = 0 ___ _
By: ____ AM_Y_D_e_AV_ILA ___ _
Deputy Clerk
(Seal of tile COllrt)
[Use 60 days if the deJendom is the U,/ired Slates or a Unired States agency. or is an officer or employee of the Unired States. Allowed
60 days by Rille 12(a)(J)).
CV-OIA (10/11 SUMMONS
Name & Address:
CHARLES FARANO (SBN: 869 15)
22641 LAKE FOREST DR. , #B5-107
LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 [(949)382-1 485]
MARLA JAMES; KATHERINE ALDRlCH; and
VICTORlA PAPPAS,
PLAINTIFF(S)
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERI CA; CITY OF COSTA
MESA, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF LAKE FOREST,
CALI FORNIA; and ERIC HOLDER, in his capacity as
Attorney General of the United States, DEFENDANT{S).
CASE NUMBER
SJ\ CVI2-00280 JVS lRNBx)
SUMMONS
TO: DEFENDANT(S): CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
A lawsuit has been fil ed against you.
Within 30 days after service of thi s summons on you (not count ing the day you received it), you
must serve on the plaintitTan answer to the attached 00 complai nt 0 amended complai nt
or motion must be served on the plaintiff's anomey, MATTHEW PAPPAS , whose address is
22641 LAKE FOREST DR .. #B5-107, LAKE FOREST. CA 22630 . If you fail to do so,
your answer or motion with the court .
Clerk, U.S. Di strict Court
Dated: ____ "_,_--'- 'W' =-___ _
AMY DeAVILA
By: __________ _
Deputy Clerk
(Seal of the Court)
[Use 60 days if the defendalll is the United States or a United Stales agency. or is an officer or employee of Ihe United Stales. Allowed
60 days by Rule 11(0)(3)].
CV..(l IA {I O/ll SUMMONS
Name & Address:
CHARLES FARANO (SBN: 86915)
22641 LAKE FOREST DR., #B5-1 07
LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 [(949) 382-1485]
UNITED STATES DI STRI CT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRI CT OF CALIFORNI A
MARLA JAMES; KATHERINE ALDRJCH; and
VICTORIA PAPPAS,
PLAINTIFF(S)
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; CITY OF COSTA
MESA, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF LAKE FOREST,
CALIFORNIA; and ERIC HOLDER, in hi s capacity as
DEFENDANT(S).
TO: DEFENDANT(S): ERJC HOLDER
A lawsuit has been fil ed against you.
CASE NUMBER
SACV12-00280 ,VS (RNBx)
SUMMONS
must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the anached 4EI complaint 0 amended complaint
or motion must be served on the plaintiff' s anomey, MATTHEW PAPPAS , whose address is
22641 LAKE FOREST DR., #B5-107, LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 . If you fail to do so,
judgment by default wi ll be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file
your answer or motion with the court.
~ B H 20fr
Dated: __________ _ By: __ ---c:-A_M_Y...,De::-A...,VI_lA ___ _
Deputy Clerk
(Seal of Ihe COllrl)
{Use 60 days if Ihe defendant is Ille Uniled Siaies or a Uniled Stales agency, or is an officer or employee of Ihe Uniled SlaiCS. Allowed
60 days by Rille Il(a)(3)j.
CV-OIA (10/11 SUMMONS

G Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

G Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

MATTHEW S.

PAPPAS (SBN: 171860)

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi