Californians Against Discrimination and Preferences, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges Complaint in Intervention of Intervenors

    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

Theresa Fay-Bustillos, Bar No. 99408 
Thomas A. Saenz, Bar No. 159430 
MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

634 S. Spring Street, 11th Floor 
Los Angeles, CA 90014 
(213) 629-2512
Bill Lann Lee, Bar No. 108452 
Constance Rice, Bar No. 153372 
Darci Burrell, Bar No. 180467 
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND 

EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
315 W. Ninth Street, Suite 208 
Los Angeles, CA 90015 
(213) 624-2405
Attorneys for Intervenors-Real 

Parties in Interest
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

CALIFORNIANS AGAINST 
DISCRIMINATION AND PREFERENCES, 
INC . ,

Petitioner, 

v.

THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE 
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES; 
CALIFORNIA STATE LOTTERY 
COMMISSION; and DEPARTMENT OF 
GENERAL SERVICES,

Respondents.

CALIFORNIA HISPANIC CHAMBER OF 
COMMERCE; SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN 
LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE OF 
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY; 
CALIFORNIA COALITION OF 
HISPANIC ORGANIZATIONS; LOS 
ANGELES URBAN LEAGUE; and 
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 
MINORITY CONTRACTORS OF 
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,

Intervenors-Real 
Parties in Interest.

Case No. 96CS03010

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF 
INTERVENORS - REAL PARTIES IN 
INTEREST CALIFORNIA HISPANIC 
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, SOUTHERN 
CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP 
CONFERENCE OF GREATER LOS 
ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 
COALITION OF HISPANIC 
ORGANIZATIONS, LOS ANGELES 
URBAN LEAGUE, and NATIONAL 
ASSOCIATION OF MINORITY 
CONTRACTORS OF SOUTHERN 
CALIFORNIA



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

By leave of Court, the California Hispanic Chamber of 

Commerce, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater 
Los Angeles County, the California Coalition of Hispanic 
Organizations, the Los Angeles Urban League, and the National 

Association of Minority Contractors of Southern California 

intervene in this action as real parties in interest and allege and 

demand as follows:

Procedural History

1. Petitioner Californians Against Discrimination and
Preferences, Inc. commenced this action on November 6, 1996 by

filing a petition for writ of mandate against respondents the Board 

of Governors of the California Community Colleges, the California 

State Lottery Commission, and the Department of General Services. 

Petitioner seeks a writ commanding respondents to cease enforcing 
California Education Code §§ 87100-87107, California Government 

Code § 8880.56(b)(4), and California Public Contract Code §§ 10115- 

10115.15.

2. Intervenors-real parties in interest are informed and 

believe and, on that basis, allege that none of the respondents 

have yet appeared in this action.

Grounds for Intervention

3. Intervenor-real party in interest California Hispanic 

Chamber of Commerce ("Hispanic Chamber") is an organization with 

minority members with an extensive history of advocating for an 

increase in the economic role of Hispanic businesses in California. 

The mission of the Hispanic Chamber is to promote and support the 

advancement of minority-owned businesses and to enhance the 

business opportunities available to minority-owned businesses in
2



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

California. Should enforcement of the challenged statutes 
discontinue, the members of the Hispanic Chamber will be adversely 

affected in their ability to obtain contracting opportunities. 
The Hispanic Chamber was named as a real party in interest in the 

action, Wilson v. State Personnel Board, et al.. No. 96-CS-01082, 

which is currently pending in this Court and which challenges the 
same California statutes challenged in this action.

4. Intervenor-real party in interest Southern Christian 

Leadership Conference of Greater Los Angeles County ("SCLC") is a 

civil rights organization with minority members and affiliate 

minority churches. SCLC has a long history of advocating for equal 

opportunity for all races in employment and contracting. Should 

enforcement of the challenged statutes discontinue, SCLC's members 

and the members of its affiliate churches will be adversely 

affected in their ability to obtain employment and contracting 
opportunities.

5. Intervenor-real party in interest the California
Coalition of Hispanic Organizations ("CCHO") is an association of 

Hispanic organizations that focuses on Latino issue-s. The CCHO 

advocates for equal opportunity for all Latinos and other 

minorities in California. The mission of the CCHO is to improve 

the contracting and economic development opportunities of its 

member organizations and their members, to promote racial and 

economic equality, and to improve the quality of life for Hispanics 
and other ethnic minorities in California. Should enforcement of 

the challenged statutes discontinue, the members of the CCHO will 

be adversely affected in their ability to obtain contracting and 

employment opportunities. CCHO was named as a real party in

3



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

interest in the action, Wilson v. State Personnel Board, et al.. 

No. 96-CS-01082, which is currently pending in this Court and which 
challenges the same California statutes challenged in this action.

6. Intervenor-real party in interest Los Angeles Urban 
League is a civil rights organization with a long history of 

advocating for equal opportunity for all races in employment and 

contracting. The mission of the Los Angeles Urban League is to 

promote racial and economic equality and to improve the quality of 

life for African Americans and other ethnic minorities in 

California in the areas of employment and economic development. 

The Business Development and Entrepreneur Center ("BDEC") is a 
project of the Los Angeles Urban League, with minority business 

enterprise members, designed to assist and expand African American 

and other minority-owned businesses. Should enforcement of the 

challenged statutes discontinue, the members of the Los Angeles 

Urban League's BDEC will be adversely affected in their ability to 
obtain contracting opportunities.

7. Intervenor-real party in interest the National 

Association of Minority Contractors of Southern California ("NAMC") 

is an organization with minority contracting members. NAMC has a 

long history of advocating for equal opportunity for all races in 

employment and contracting. The mission of NAMC is to promote the 

economic and legal interests of minority contracting firms, 

advocate laws and government actions which meet the concerns of 

minority contractors and bring about more equitable and wider 

procurement and business opportunities for minority contractors. 

Should enforcement of the challenged statutes discontinue, the 

members of the National Association of Minority Business
4



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

Contractors of Southern California will be adversely affected in 

their ability to obtain contracting opportunities.
8. Intervenors-real parties in interest have the right to 

intervene in this action as real parties in interest because they, 

many of their individual members, or the individual members of 

their member organizations would be harmed by any discontinuation 

of the enforcement of the challenged statutes. Discontinued 

enforcement would adversely affect members' ability to compete 
fairly for employment opportunities with California public 

community colleges and to compete fairly for contracting 

opportunities with the Lottery Commission and other California 
state agencies and entities. Therefore, disposition of this action 

in favor of petitioner would as a practical matter impair or impede 
intervenors' ability to protect their interest in continued 

enforcement of the challenged statutes.

9. Intervention is also proper because intervenors have an 

interest in defending the continued enforcement of the challenged 
statutes that is different from any interest of respondents in 

defending this action. Respondent agencies of jthe state of 

California are all subject to some degree of control by Governor 

Pete Wilson, the chief executive officer of the State of 

California, who has already stated his opposition to further 

enforcement of the challenged statutes by filing an action 

currently pending in this Court, Wilson v. State Personnel Board, 

et al., No. 96-CS-01082, to declare these statutes 

unconstitutional. Respondents California State Lottery Commission 

and Department of General Services have taken no position on the

5



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

legality of the challenged statutes in that previously-filed 

action.
Defenses

10. The Court lacks jurisdiction over this action because 

petitioner Californians Against Discrimination and Preferences, 

Inc. lacks a sufficient interest to confer standing to challenge 
California Education Code §§ 87100-87107, California Government 

Code § 8880.56(b)(4), and California Public Contract Code §§ 10115- 

10115.15 or to raise any claim against these statutes under Article 

I, section 31 of the California Constitution.
11. Intervenors are informed and believe and on that basis 

allege that, as a nonprofit corporation under section 501(c)(4) of 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, petitioner has not paid taxes to 

the State of California within one year before the commencement of 

this action.
12. The petition in this action is defective in that it fails 

to name all of the real parties in interest whose interests could 

be directly affected by this proceeding or by discontinued 

enforcement of the challenged statutes. These unnamed real parties 

have the right to notice and to be heard before any writ is issued. 

Without their presence, no writ may be granted.

13. The petition fails to state a cause of action. The 

challenged statutes are valid and enforceable under the California 

Constitution. None of the mandated programs are inconsistent with 

Article I, section 31 of the California Constitution. Respondents 

are therefore required to continue to enforce the challenged 

statutes.

6



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. Issuance of a peremptory writ is inappropriate in this 

action. The resolution of any questions as to the consistency of 

the challenged statutes with Article I, section 31 of the 
California Constitution depends upon factual questions regarding 

the operation and enforcement of the mandated programs.
First Counter-Claim

(Declaratory Relief, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1060)

15. Intervenors-real parties in interest reallege paragraphs 

1-9 above and incorporate them by this reference.
16. An actual controversy exists relating to the legal rights 

and duties of the respondents and the intervenors-real parties in 

interest with respect to the challenged statutes.
17. The challenged statutes, California Education Code §§ 

87100-87107, California Government Code § 8880.56(b)(4), and 

California Public Contract Code §§ 10115-10115.15, are valid and 

enforceable, and do not conflict with Article I, section 31 of the 

California Constitution.
18. Intervenors-real parties in interest seek a judicial 

declaration to that effect.

Wherefore, intervenors-real parties in interest pray for 

relief as follows:
1. That petitioner take nothing;
2. That the Court dismiss the petition with prejudice;

3. That the Court declare that California Education Code §§

87100-87107, California Government Code § 8880.56(b)(4), and 

California Public Contract Code ' §§ 10115-10115.15 are valid,

enforceable, and consistent with the California Constitution;

7



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. For an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of 
suit incurred;

5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem 
appropriate.

DATED: November 27, 1996 Respectfully submitted,

By:
Gliomas A. Saenz

By: t L x x  L ojl
Bill Lann Lee

Attorneys for Intervenors-Real 
Parties in Interest

8



PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of 
California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within 
action. My business address is 634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor, 
Los Angeles, CA 90014.

On December 2, 1996, I served [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE 
TO INTERVENE; on the parties identified below by leaving between 
the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. with a person at least 18 
years of age, a receptionist in the office of the attorney or a 
person having charge of the attorney's office a true copy thereof 
in an envelope(s) or package(s) clearly labeled to identify the 
person being served at the following address(es):

Anthony T. Caso
Sharon L. Browne
Mark T. Gallagher
Deborah J. La Fetra
Robert J. Corry
PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION
2151 River Plaza Dr., Ste. 305
Sacramento, CA 95833

I certify or declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 
of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date Elena Lopez-Eldredge



PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of 
California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within 
action. My business address is 634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor, 
Los Angeles, CA 90014.

On November 27, 1996, I served COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF 
INTERVENORS-REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST CALIFORNIA HISPANIC CHAMBER OF 
COMMERCE, SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE OF GREATER LOS 
ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA COALITION OF HISPANIC ORGANIZATIONS, LOS 
ANGELES URBAN LEAGUE, and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MINORITY 
CONTRACTORS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on the parties identified below 
by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 
envelope(s) for collection and deposit in the United States Postal 
Service at my place of business, following ordinary business 
practices addressed as follows:
Ralph Black
Acting General Counsel 
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES 
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE 
Legal Affairs Division 
1107 Ninth Street 
Sacramento, CA 95814

Jeff Marschner
Chief Counsel
DEPT. OF GENERAL SERVICES
Office of Legal Services
1325 J Street, Ste. 1911
Sacramento, CA 95814

Melissa M. Meith 
Susan L. Bobrow 
CALIFORNIA STATE LOTTERY 
Legal Office 
600 N. 10th Street 
Sacramento, CA 95814

Anthony T. Caso
Sharon L. Browne
Mark T. Gallagher
Deborah J. La Fetra
Robert J. Corry
PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION
2151 River Plaza Drive, Ste. 305
Sacramento, CA 95833

I am readily familiar with the business' practices for 
collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the 
United States Postal Service. Under that practice, the 
correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal 
Service that same day in the ordinary course of business.

I certify or declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 
of the State of California that the foregoing^ is true and correct.