THE ASSN. OF LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEYS V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The Los Angeles City Attorneys Association filed a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles in United States Central District Court on Tuesday May 15th, 2012.

LA City Attorneys filed the 125 page complaint alleging:

Breach of Contract
Violation of the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution
Violation of the Contracts Clause of the California Constitution
Violation of the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution
Violation of the Takings Clause of the California Constitution
Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution
Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution
Violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution
Violation of the Due Process Clause of the California Constitution

Some highlights of the suit; According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, “In the last thirty-five years, no Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court case has found a statute or ordinance necessary when the law in question altered a financial term of an agreement to which a state entity was a party.” So. California Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 897 (9th Cir. 2003.)

Defendant enacted mandatory furloughs for the attorneys in the City Attorney’ s Office 26 without regard to the funding sources from which those attorneys are paid. For example, some LACAA members’ salaries are reimbursed by the Port of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power & Los Angeles World Airports. Nevertheless, Defendant subjected these members to mandatory unpaid furloughs even though it would not save General Fund monies because the members’ salaries were not attributable to the General Fund.

Fiscal Emergency? Looks like the books tell a different story.

Defendant’ s “General Fund Actual Cash Flow” report for the quarter ending March 31, 2012 states that Defendant’s General Fund receipts exceeded General Fund disbursements by over $62 million so far during the Fiscal Year 2011-12.

Defendant’ s Comprehensive Financial Report (“CAFR”) for the Fiscal Year 2009-10 shows Defendant’ s income from revenues and other financing sources exceeded Defendant’ s expenditures by over $74 million. Moreover, the Fiscal Year 2009-10 CAFR shows that Defendant’ s actual expenditures were over $233 million less than what was budgeted for in the adopted budget for that year.

While Defendant continues impairing LACAA’s Contract, it is entering into labor contracts giving other employees raises. In June 2011, for example, Defendant executed a memorandum of understanding with the employee association representing the Senior Administrative and Administrative Analysts Unit that gave employees in that unit raises in January 2012 and January 2013. Defendant’s willingness to provide other employees raises that were not contractually required demonstrates that Defendant’s impairment of LACAA’s Contract is neither reasonable nor necessary.

We will update this further throughout the day.