Advertised public notices, printed in a newspaper of general circulation, are required by California law. Within the individual category, notices are arranged by print publish day in reverse chronological order.
Online, on a selected date, the notices are arranged in alphabetical order.
FIRST AMENDED SUMMONS (CITATION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE! YOU HAVE BEEN SUED. THE COURT MAY DECIDE AGAINST YOU WITHOUT YOUR BEING HEARD UNLESS YOU RESPOND NOT LATER THAN JULY 31, 2012
, WHICH IS AT LEAST TEN (10) DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF THE PUBLICATION OF THIS SUMMONS. READ INFORMATION BELOW.
AVISO! USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO. EL TRIBUNAL PUEDE DECIDIR CONTRA USTED SIN AUDIENCIA A MENOS QUE USTED RESPONDA NO MÁS TARDE QUE EL 31 DE JULIO, 2012
, QUE ES DIEZ (10) DIAS DEPUÉS DE LA TERMINACIÓN DE LA PUBLICACIÓN DE ESTA CITACIÓN. LEA LA INFORMACIÓN QUE SIGUE.
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: The City of San Diego, a California Municipal Corporation, and All Persons Interested in the Matter of the Convention Center Facilities District Number 2012-1 as provided by Resolution Number R-307243, adopted on January 30, 2012, by the City Council of the City of San Diego; the validity of all proceedings theretofore taken or made for or in any way connected with the adoption of Resolution Number R-307243, including, but not limited to the levy of a special tax as provided therein.
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: BRIGETTE BROWNING, a Citizen of the City of San Diego; SERGIO GONZALES, a Citizen of the City of San Diego; UNITE HERE LOCAL 30
PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYS ARE:
Mulvaney Barry Beatty Linn & Mayers LLP; John H. Stephens, Patrick L. Prindle; 401 West A Street, 17th Floor, San Diego, CA 92101; Telephone: (619) 238-1010; Facsimile: (619) 238-1981
THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE COURT IS:
San Diego Superior Court, Central Division, 330 West Broadway, San Diego, California JUDGE: Hon. Joel M. Pressman, Dept. C-66
CASE NO. 37-2012-00094831-CU-MC-CTL.To ALL PERSONS INTERESTED
, BRIGETTE BROWNING, a Citizen of the City of San Diego; SERGIO GONZALES, a Citizen of the City of San Diego; UNITE HERE LOCAL 30 have brought suit challenging the Convention Center Facilities District Number 2012-1 as provided by Resolution Number R-307243, adopted on January 30, 2012, by the City Council of the City of San Diego, the findings in support of the Resolution Number R-307243, and the validity of all proceedings theretofore taken or made for or in any way connected with the adoption of Resolution Number R-307243, including, but not limited to the levy of a special tax as provided therein.
On January 30, 2012, the City of San Diego adopted Resolution Number R-307243, creating the Convention Center Facilities District Number 2012-1, and providing for, among other things, the levy of a special tax without first submitting the special tax for approval by the electorate of San Diego and in a manner not consistent with the California Constitution and California Government Code. The Plaintiffs are, or represent, citizens of San Diego who have been denied their constitutional right to approve or reject the levy of such a special tax.
Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment declaring that:
a. this action is properly brought under California Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 860, et seq, and specifically under Section 863;
b. the proceedings by and for CITY in connection with the adoption of Resolution Number R-307243, the formation of the Convention Center Facilities District, and the authorization of the special tax were invalid, illegal and not binding;
c. the proceedings by and for CITY in connection with the adoption of Resolution Number R-307243, the formation of the Convention Center Facilities District, and the authorization of the special tax were and are not in conformity with the applicable provisions of all laws and enactments in force and controlling upon such proceedings, whether imposed by law, constitution, statute, charter, or ordinance, and whether federal, state, or municipal;
d. the legal proceedings for formation of the Convention Center Facilities District and the conduct of a special election as provided for by Resolution Number R-307243 do not conform with the requirements of law, and violate the California Constitution;
e. Article 13A, § 4 and Article 13C of the California Constitution and California Government Code Sections 53311, et seq., and 53720 through 53730, have been violated in the proceedings and by Resolution Number R-307243;
f. the levy, collection, and expenditure of the special tax as provided by Resolution Number R-307243 does, and will, violate the California Constitution;
g. Resolution Number R-307243 is not valid or correct, and is not binding;
h. CITY has no authority and is not authorized, under California law, to levy the special tax, to issue bonds, and to execute and implement the provisions, contracts, and agreements described, referenced, and included in Resolution Number R-307243.
All interested persons may contest the legality or validity of the matter by appearing and filing a written answer to the complaint not later than the date specified herein. If you wish to appear and answer the complaint, you must file in this Court a written pleading in response to the complaint on or before July 31, 2012
. Otherwise, upon application of the Plaintiff, the Court may enter judgment for the relief requested in the complaint, including: (1) an order declaring that the City of San Diego violated the procedural due process rights of the Plaintiffs by improperly creating Convention Center Facilities District 2012-1, and by submitting the question of approval of the special tax provided in Resolution Number R-307243 to a vote by certain hotel operators and/or owners, most of whom are not people, not registered to vote in the City of San Diego, and not electors as defined by California law. Any person who contests the legality or validity of this matter will not be subject to punitive action such as wage garnishment or seizure of their real or personal property.
YOU MAY SEEK THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY IN ANY MATTER CONNECTED WITH THE COMPLAINT OR THIS SUMMONS. SUCH ATTORNEY SHOULD BE CONSULTED PROMPTLY SO THAT YOUR PLEADING MAY BE FILED OR ENTERED WITHIN THE TIME REQUIRED BY THIS SUMMONS.
SI USTED DESEA SOLICITAR EL CONSEJO DE UN ABOGADO EN ESTE ASUNTO, DEBERÍA HACERLO INMEDIATAMENTE, PARA QUE, SU REPUESTA ESCRITA, SI HAY ALGUNA, PUEDA SER REGISTRADA A TIEMPO.
Date:JUNE 14, 2012 Clerk, by J. McGinnis, Deputy
Pub. June 18, 25, July 2-00100106