CCCIvModestoamended

8/2/2019 CCCIvModestoamended

1/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

BRIAN P. BROSNAHAN (Cal. State Bar No. 112894)BETHANY A. GLOVER (Cal. State Bar No. 209423)ANAGHA DANDEKAR CLIFFORD (Cal. State Bar No. 233806)HELLER EHRMAN LLP333 Bush StreetSan Francisco, CA 94104-2878

Telephone: (415) 772-6000Facsimile: (415) 772-6268

ROBERT RUBIN (Cal. State Bar No. 85084)CHHAYA MALIK (Cal. State Bar No. 228581)LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS131 Steuart Street, Suite 400San Francisco, CA 94105Telephone: (415) 543-9444Facsimile: (415) 543-0296

Additional Counsel Listed o n Last Page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE COMMITTEE CONCERNINGCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT, SOUTHUNITED NEIGHBORS, DAVID CARO,MANUEL ESPINO, HORTENCIAFRANCO, LUPE HUESCA, FLORINDALAUREANO, ENA LOPEZ, BLANCA

MARTINEZ, GRISELDA MARTINEZ,SALVADOR GUTIERREZ MARTINEZ,JAZMIN MERCADO, JUAN MERCADO,MAGDALENA MERCADO, JUANPEREZ, GLORIA PIMENTEL, ALFONSORIVERA, DARREN SCHAEFFER, ANDELVIRA VILLALOBOS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF MODESTO, COUNTY OFSTANISLAUS, and STANISLAUSCOUNTY SHERIFF,

Defendants.

Case No.: CIV-F-04-6121 REC DLB

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 1:04-cv-06121-LJO -DLB Document 67 Filed 04/06/05 Page 1 of 21


2/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -1-

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

1. In this case, Plaintiffs seek to end the severe harm to their health, safety and

dignity caused by Defendants unlawful discrimination based on race, ethnicity, color,

ancestry or national origin. Plaintiffs are seventeen residents of predominantly Latino

neighborhoods in unincorporated areas of Stanislaus County and two community groups

representing their interests. Defendants are the City of Modesto (City or Modesto), the

County of Stanislaus (County or Stanislaus County) and agencies and officials of their

governments. As a direct result of the actions and inactions of Defendants over many

years, Plaintiffs neighborhoods receive substantially fewer municipal services than

predominantly White unincorporated neighborhoods surrounded by the City.

2. Although Plaintiffs neighborhoods are essentially urban areas, Plaintiffs are

forced to do without basic amenities. Some or all of these neighborhoods, in contrast to

predominantly White unincorporated neighborhoods and surrounding City land, have no

street lighting, no sidewalks, less effective law enforcement protection, no proper sanitation

inadequate storm drainage, and streets that are barely maintained or patrolled. The

insufficient law enforcement presence gives rise to additional health and safety hazards for

Plaintiffs and their children.

3. Defendant Modesto has grown over the past several decades by steadily annexing

parcels of land largely owned and occupied by Whites. While predominantly White

neighborhoods have been annexed, the City has left predominantly Latino neighborhoods

where Plaintiffs reside out of its growth, annexing around them. As a result, these

neighborhoods are now isolated pockets of unincorporated, under-served land within the

jurisdiction of the County and are nearly or entirely surrounded by the City. Although the

deplorable conditions in Plaintiffs neighborhoods caused by Defendants discriminatory

treatment have been known to Modesto for some time, the City has all but ignored these

dire conditions.

4. Defendant Stanislaus County in turn has failed to provide Plaintiffs, its residents,

with adequate services and has also failed to provide equal services between Latino and



3/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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


White unincorporated urban areas. Although the discrimination and the resulting deplorable

conditions in Plaintiffs neighborhoods have been known to Stanislaus County for some

time, the County has refused to correct these dire conditions or otherwise respond to

Plaintiffs pleas for help.

5. Plaintiffs have suffered severe and ongoing harm as a result of Defendants

failure to provide basic municipal services, including ongoing damage to the health, safety

and dignity of Plaintiffs and their children. Defendants acts and omissions constitute

discrimination against Plaintiffs based on their race, ethnicity, color, ancestry or national

origin in violation of state and federal law.

II. JURISDICTION

6. This Court has jurisdiction over all counts asserted in this complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 1367. The Court has jurisdiction over the first two

counts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 because they arise under the laws of the United States

or the United States Constitution and seek to redress a deprivation of Plaintiffs civil rights

under color of state law. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the third through

fifth counts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 because those counts, which arise under state law,

are so related to the counts arising under federal law that they form part of the same case or

controversy.

7. Plaintiffs are residents of, and organizations located in, Stanislaus County.

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events

giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in this District and because Defendants City of

Modesto and County of Stanislaus are located in this District.

III. THE PARTIES

8. Plaintiffs reside in islands of unincorporated County land, inhabited primarily

by Latinos, surrounded by the southwestern region of the City of Modesto. These

predominantly Latino unincorporated areas in which Plaintiffs live have informal names

that are well known by the residents and by officials of the City and the County. Among

the predominantly Latino unincorporated areas are neighborhoods known informally as



4/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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


Bret Harte, the Garden, No Mans Land and Robertson Road (herein referred to as

the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods.) Bret Harte is an unincorporated, residential

neighborhood in the vicinity of Imperial Avenue and Dallas Street. The Garden is an

unincorporated, residential neighborhood in the vicinity of Sutter Avenue and Garden

Avenue. No Mans Land is an unincorporated, residential neighborhood in the vicinity of

Hatch Road and Church Lane. Robertson Road is an unincorporated, residential

neighborhood in the vicinity of Robertson Road.

9. Plaintiff Committee Concerning Community Improvement (CCCI) is a

voluntary, community-based organization founded with the goal of ac quiring and improving

municipal services for Bret Harte. CCCI members are either homeowners or leaseholders in

Bret Harte. CCCI was formed because the founding members were concerned about

hazardous conditions and crime in their community. Members of CCCI have met and do

meet regularly to plan and attempt strategies for improving municipal services in their

neighborhood. Members of CCCI are also named plaintiffs in the current case.

10. Plaintiff South United Neighbors (SUN) is a voluntary, community-based

organization founded with the goal of acquiring and improving municipal services for No

Mans Land. SUN members are either homeowners or leaseholders in No Mans Land.

SUN was formed because the founding members were concerned about hazardous

conditions and crime in their community. Members of SUN have met and do meet

regularly to plan and attempt strategies for improving municipal services in their

neighborhood. Members of SUN are also named plaintiffs in this First Amended

Complaint.

11. Plaintiff David Caro is a Latino and a resident of the Garden.

12. Plaintiff Manuel Espino is a Latino and a resident of No Mans Land.

13. Plaintiff Hortencia Franco is a Latina, a resident of No Mans Land, and a

member of SUN.

14. Plaintiff Lupe Huesca is a Latina and a resident of Bret Harte.

15. Plaintiff Florinda Laureano is a Latina and a resident of the Garden.



5/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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. Plaintiff Ena Lopez is a Latina and a resident of No Mans Land.

17. Plaintiff Blanca Martinez is a Latina and a resident of the Garden.

18. Plaintiff Griselda Martinez is a Latina and a resident of Bret Harte.

19. Plaintiff Salvador Gutierrez Martinez is a Latino and a resident of the Garden.

20. Plaintiff Jazmin Mercado is a Latino, a resident of Bret Harte, and a member of

CCCI.

21. Plaintiff Juan Mercado is a Latino, a resident of Bret Harte, and an officer of

CCCI.

22. Plaintiff Magdalena Mercado is a Latina, a resident of Bret Harte, and an officer

of CCCI.

23. Plaintiff Juan Perez is a Latino and a resident of Bret Harte.

24. Plaintiff Gloria Pimentel is a Latina and a resident of Bret Harte.

25. Plaintiff Darren Schaeffer is a resident of No Mans Land and a founding

member of SUN.

26. Plaintiff Alfonso Rivera is a resident of Robertson Road.

27. Plaintiff Elvira Villalobos is a Latina and resident of Bret Harte.

28. Defendant City of Modesto is a city within the County of Stanislaus.

29. Defendant County of Stanislaus is a county within the State of California and

encompasses the City.

30. Defendant Sheriff of Stanislaus County is a law enforcement agency of the

County.

IV. BACKGROUND FACTS

31. Modesto is the largest city in the County and is the County seat. According to the

Citys website, it offers the diversity and facilities of a metropolitan city, but still maintains

an atmosphere of old-fashioned hospitality. Its residents enjoy the use of more than sixty

parks, three golf courses, and a 13,000 square foot skate park. It has its own symphony,

theater, ballet company, baseball team and will soon host the $30 million Gallo Center for

the Arts.



6/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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


32. The City lies in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley, one of the most fertile

agricultural areas in the country.

33. Since its settlement in 1870, the City has attracted a community of farm workers.

Especially in the last few decades, the residents of these communities have largely been

Latino. Though more diversified now in the work that they do, the residents of the Latino

Unincorporated Neighborhoods are generally of low or modest income.

34. Route 99 traverses Modesto diagonally from the northwest to the southeast. For

the last several decades, Route 99 has been the informal color line in Modesto. There is a

long history of segregation along this line, with people of color relegated to the area

southwest of Route 99.

A. The Annexation Process

35. Over the years, Modesto has grown steadily in size by annexing parcels of land

adjacent or near to it. Since 1963, when the California Legislature created Local Agency

Formation Commissions (LAFCOs), annexations of land by Modesto have all been

approved by Stanislaus LAFCO as required by the California Government Code.

According to state law, Stanislaus LAFCO determines the sphere of influence of

Modesto. The sphere of influence is the physical boundary that a local government

agency is expected to serve. On information and belief, the Latino Unincorporated

Neighborhoods are all in Modestos sphere of influence.

36. Modesto has annexed parcels of land in an uneven and discriminatory way. Most

of the parcels annexed by the city since at least the 1950s have been to the north and east of

Route 99, where the population is predominantly White. Modesto has annexed around and

beyond many predominantly Latino neighborhoods south and west of Route 99 so that

much of the land surrounding those Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods has now become

part of the City.

37. Despite the California Government Codes articulation of a strong governmental

interest in avoiding islands of unincorporated territory, Modesto and Stanislaus County

have allowed such islands of unincorporated land to be created.



7/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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


38. In order to annex a parcel of land, the City can bring its own proposal or residents

can collect a certain number of signatures. The County, City, and LAFCOs exercise of

discretion in the annexation process has a discriminatory effect on Latino communities and,

on information and belief, it is intended to have that effect.

39. In 1988, residents of the Bret Harte community sought to secure annexation to the

City. Residents collected the requisite signatures and petitioned for annexation. However,

the City and County refused to agree on financing that would allow a transfer of land to the

City and the annexation request was denied. After they failed to reach an agreement, the

City and County made no further efforts to develop any plan, process, or procedure to help

this Latino community.

40. In 1997, Modesto voters passed Measure M, which requires the City to hold an

advisory vote prior to extending sewer services to unincorporated areas. In 2003, the

Robertson Road community sought to have a Measure M vote put on the ballot in order to

begin the process for extending sewer service from the City to Robertson Road, which is

situated directly above a City sewer line. Although that Measure M vote was provisionally

scheduled, the City removed the measure from the ballot. Its explanation at the time was

that it was City policy not to hold a Measure M vote unless the City and County could

agree on tax sharing and other fiscal agreements. On information and belief, the City has

not required that all tax sharing and fiscal agreements be in place prior to allowing a

Measure M vote for other neighborhoods. On July 14, 2004 the City provisionally agreed

to allow for a Measure M vote for sewers in the Robertson Road area, but cautioned that

any vote in favor of the measure would not be interpreted as a predicate for the extension of

additional services such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or storm drainage. The vote has not

yet taken place.

B. The Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods Receive Inferior MunicipalServices

41. Plaintiffs reside in neighborhoods that are predominantly Latino. These

neighborhoods have a significantly higher percentage of Latino residents than either



8/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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


Modesto or Stanislaus County in general. For example, 26% of the population of Modesto

and 32% of the population of Stanislaus County are Latino. In contrast, 76% of the

residents of the Bret Harte neighborhood, 71% of the residents of the No Mans Land

neighborhood, 70% of the residents of the Robertson Road neighborhood, and 63% of the

residents of the Garden neighborhood are Latino, according to the 2000 U.S. Census.

42. A Latino living within the Modesto sphere of influence is approximately three

times more likely than a non-Latino to live in an unincorporated area with inferior

municipal services.

43. The Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods receive fewer and poorer public

services than other neighborhoods in Modesto and other unincorporated urban areas of

Stanislaus County near Modesto with predominantly White populations. They generally

have no sidewalks, inadequate drainage, poorly maintained roads, few street lights,

inadequate traffic control signs, and inadequate law enforcement services. Many residents

of these neighborhoods suffer from the pooling of water and sewage on their streets, and

pollution of their air, water and soil, in stark contrast to predominantly White

unincorporated urban areas. These poor conditions adversely affect the health, safety, and

dignity of the people who live in these neighborhoods.

44. Residents of the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods work in Modesto, shop in

Modesto, patronize Modesto restaurants and movie theaters, and use Modesto buses and

roads. The Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods resemble neighboring parts of Modesto

in terms of residential density, but are easily differentiated by the lack of basic services such

as sidewalks, street lights and road maintenance.

45. Residents of these neighborhoods suffer greatly from being surrounded by fully

urbanized Modesto land. Without the municipal services that any urbanized area requires,

these neighborhoods have become a magnet for Modesto residents and others to commit

crimes and endanger the neighborhood residents with impunity. The lack of adequate

patrols by law enforcement and the slow response by law enforcement to emergencies put

the residents of the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods at greater risk for criminal



9/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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


activity than predominantly White unincorporated neighborhoods that enjoy better law

enforcement. Inadequate lighting, inadequate patrols by law enforcement, and the poor

enforcement of municipal codes related to the dumping of refuse and junk permit Modesto

residents and others to use parts of these Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods as dumping

grounds.

1. Lack of Sidewalks and Street Lights

46. In contrast to the incorporated areas of Modesto that border them and some of the

predominantly White unincorporated areas near Modesto, none of the Latino

Unincorporated Neighborhoods has sidewalks. On information and belief, predominantly

White unincorporated areas near Modesto have more sidewalks than the Latino

Unincorporated Neighborhoods.

47. When it rains, the lack of sidewalks and related drainage transforms the sides of

the roads in these Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods into deeply rutted swaths of mud,

dotted with pools of standing water that stagnate for weeks at a time. The sides of the roads

sometimes become impassable for the residents, including the children who live there. As a

consequence, many children on the way to and from school are forced to walk either in deep

mud or in the roadway in the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods. Elderly people using

walkers are also forced to walk in the street at these times.

48. Walking on roads without sidewalks has caused serious risk to the children and

adult residents of these Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods. Some main roads in these

areas have inadequate posted speed limits and, due to the lack of a law enforcement

presence, drivers often speed down these streets and run stop signs. Children have been

injured after being hit by cars on streets where there is inadequate law enforcement.

49. Even though they are essentially urban, many Latino Unincorporated

Neighborhoods such as Robertson Road, the Garden and Bret Harte lack street lights. The

lack of street lights contributes to dangerously high levels of street crime and illegal



10/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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


dumping of trash and junk.1 Many families who live in the Latino Unincorporated

Neighborhoods where there are no street lights are afraid to allow their children outside

after dusk because of the dangers they face as a result of the heightened crime levels.

2. Lack of Effective Law Enforcement Protection

50. Despite consistently high crime levels, the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods

do not receive adequate protection from the Sheriff or Modesto Police. Patrols of the Latino

Unincorporated Neighborhoods by law enforcement are too infrequent and law enforcement

does not respond sufficiently to calls from residents of the Latino Unincorporated

Neighborhoods. The Sheriffs office has at times responded slowly, or in some cases, did

not respond at all, to reports of home break-ins or other crimes, even those in progress. As

a result of the Sheriffs lack of patrols and lack of response or slow response to calls

originating from the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods, street crime and property

damage are high in these neighborhoods. On information and belief, certain neighborhoods

in predominantly White unincorporated urban areas are served by the Modesto Police and

the Sheriff under informal joint policing agreements.

51. On information and belief, residents in predominantly White unincorporated

areas enjoy more effective crime prevention, a greater law enforcement presence and faster

and more frequent responses to emergency calls than residents of the Latino Unincorporated

Neighborhoods. On information and belief, the Modesto Police is more likely to respond to

emergencies in the White unincorporated urban areas than in the Latino Unincorporated

Neighborhoods.

3. Lack of Bilingual Services

52. A large proportion of the residents in these Latino Unincorporated

Neighborhoods speak Spanish as their first language and do not speak English well.

According to the 2000 census, approximately 41% of residents in the Garden, 42% of

1After repeated requests to the County, Bret Harte was recently given theopportunity to vote on and pay for some lighting in the area. Residents approved theinstallation of street lights at their own cost out of desperation given the conditions in theirneighborhoods. Even under this plan, however, part of Bret Harte will remain withoutlights and therefore will still suffer from the dangers that lack of lighting presents.



11/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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


residents in Robertson Road, 46% of residents in Bret Harte, and 38% of residents in No

Mans Land speak English less than very well.

53. The City and County fail to take appropriate steps to provide alternative

communication services in Spanish to the Spanish-speaking residents of the Latino

Unincorporated Neighborhoods. On information and belief, too few providers of public

services such as police officers, sheriffs, firefighters, and emergency dispatchers speak

Spanish to provide the meaningful assistance to the residents of these Latino

Unincorporated Neighborhoods. The lack of Spanish speaking public safety employees

further restricts access for residents of the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods who do

not speak English well to the emergency, fire and police assistance they need.

4. Inadequate Drainage and Sewage Disposal

54. The Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods, with the exception of Bret Harte, are

not connected to sewer lines. Residents of the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods

depend instead on private septic tanks. Modestos sewage treatment plant and the main

sewer line borders the Robertson Road and Garden neighborhoods. The horrendous smell

from the sewage treatment plant can be overpowering to the residents of these

neighborhoods and, on information and belief, causes air pollution. The residents have

suffered tremendously from living next to the stench of this sewage facility but have not

been allowed to benefit from its use without great cost.

55. After some rains, the sewage from the septic tanks in some of the Latino

Unincorporated Neighborhoods rises to the surface and floods the street because of

improper drainage. Residents of the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods have to live

with the stench, filth and health hazard after floods without any help until it subsides.

5. The Use of the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods as DumpingGrounds

56. On information and belief, residents in and around the City of Modesto use the

Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods as free landfills. Vacant lots and alleys in these

Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods are piled with old refrigerators, mattresses,



12/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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


abandoned cars, as well as household garbage. On information and belief, neither the City

nor County regularly removes the refuse or enforces local ordinances against dumping in

these areas. The County and Citys neglect encourages people to continue dumping garbage

in the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods because they can do so with impunity. The

lack of streetlights and the minimal law enforcement presence in the Latino Unincorporated

Neighborhoods contributes to these problems. On information and belief, these problems

do not exist in most predominantly White unincorporated urban areas.

57. Illegal dumping harms residents of the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods in

a variety of ways. Some residents of the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods, after

complaining about the excessive refuse, have received citations or warnings from the

County to clean up junk dumped in streets or alleys adjacent to their property, regardless of

the fact that the residents had nothing to do with the dumping. The residents are thus

effectively punished for registering their complaints. In addition, the inability of fire trucks

and police cars to pass through these alleys presents a serious safety hazard to the residents.

Moreover, accumulated refuse poses health hazards to the residents as garbage provides

nesting materials, breeding places and food for disease carriers such as mosquitoes, rats,

mice and flies.

6. Hazardous Play Areas for Children

58. As a result of the lack of adequate law enforcement protection and adequate stree

lighting, the few open spaces that exist in some of these Latino Unincorporated

Neighborhoods have become magnets for prostitution and drug use.

59. In at least one Latino Unincorporated Neighborhood, Bret Harte, an open canal

endangers the children of that community. The canal is located immediately behind an

elementary school. Lacking other safe play spaces, the children who live in Bret Harte

sometimes walk along the sides of the canal. On information and belief, children who live

in Modesto and other White unincorporated areas have safer alternative play spaces

available to them.



13/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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


60. There are few working lights on the canal and no grates to protect the children

who live in the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods from falling in the water. Over the

past five years, several such children have been injured from falling into the canal. The lack

of lighting and presence of children attract criminals to the canal areas as well.

C. The City and County Have Long Been Aware of These and OtherHazardous Conditions in the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods

61. The City and County have long been aware of these and other hazardous

conditions in the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods, but have failed to respond to them

despite repeated requests for help from the residents. There is a long history of

demonstrated need in these communities and unmet promises by both the City and County

to meet these needs. The Board has openly admitted that they have been aware of municipal

service problems in these areas for many years.

62. Public awareness of these issues stretches back more than fifty years. In 1948, a

study by the University of Denver recommended that Modesto annex certain surrounding

areas including the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods at issue here. That study

reported that the City was bordered by an essentially urban area that does not receive

adequate city services. The study noted that the area contains no sewers, no street lights,few parks and playgrounds, and had police and fire protection below urban standards.

Annexation, the report concluded, was the best way to provide the residents of these areas

with the basic urban services that they needed. This has never been done.

63. The County has promised repeatedly to improve the basic living conditions of the

Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods. For example, in June 2001, the American Lung

Association reported that the Board allocated $1.8 million in tobacco settlement money to

rebuild streets in the Robertson Road neighborhood within the next year. On information

and belief, the County never spent that money on rebuilding the streets in the Robertson

Road neighborhood or providing any of the other municipal services that the community so

desperately needs.

64. In December 2001, residents of the Robertson Road neighborhood were informed



14/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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 a letter from Siegfried Engineering, Inc. that the County was undertaking a major

construction project to install new curbs, gutters and sidewalks in your neighborhood. A

representative of the County was copied on these letters. On information and belief, the

County did not keep the promise that was made to the Robertson Road neighborhood.

65. On May 8, 2002, the County announced that it would spend about $1 million on

constructing a sewer system in the Robertson Road area west of Modesto. On information

and belief, the County never spent any such funds on the sewer system Robertson Road

continues to need.

66. Stanislaus County and Modesto have made their annexation decisions in a

discriminatory fashion. Modesto has failed to annex the Latino Unincorporated

Neighborhoods, yet has annexed other areas of the County next to and beyond those

neighborhoods whose populations are predominantly White. On information and belief, the

City and County have provided residents of unincorporated White areas with better access

to municipal services and the annexation process than residents of the Latino

Unincorporated Neighborhoods.

67. Defendants refusal to address these problems constitutes discrimination against

the residents of the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods on the basis of race, ethnicity,

color, ancestry or national origin and has the effect of discrimination on the residents who

live in the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods on the basis of race, ethnicity, color,

ancestry or national origin. All residents of these neighborhoods suffer as a result of

Defendants actions.

68. All governmental Defendants and individual Defendants sued in their official

capacities are responsible for providing services and/or ensuring that basic services are

provided to the unincorporated communities in the Modesto area and have discriminated

and are intentionally discriminating against the residents of the Latino Unincorporated

Neighborhoods, including Plaintiffs, on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, ancestry or

national origin and in violation of state and federal law.



15/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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


69. All governmental Defendants are responsible for providing services and/or

ensuring that basic services are provided to the unincorporated communities in the Modesto

area and have engaged and are engaging in a pattern and practice of unlawful conduct that

has a disparate effect of discriminating against the Plaintiffs based on the race, ethnicity,

color, ancestry or national origin of the residents of the Latino Unincorporated

Neighborhoods, including Plaintiffs, in violation of state and federal law. This effect is

further evidence that Defendants' conduct willfully and intentionally discriminates against

the Plaintiffs based on race, ethnicity, ancestry, color, or national origin.

70. As a proximate result of Defendants unlawful acts, Plaintiffs have suffered

injury and are likely to suffer additional future injury.

FIRST COUNT

(Violation of the Equal Protection Clause and 42 U.S.C. 1983)(Against Defendants City and County)

71. Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 70 as though fully set

forth herein.

72. Defendants have denied services that are available to other residents of the City

and County to Plaintiffs in a manner that intentionally discriminates against Plaintiffs based

in substantial part on the race, ethnicity, ancestry, color or national origin of the residents of

the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods. In so doing, Defendants have violated and are

violating Plaintiffs right to the equal protection of the laws as provided by the 14th

Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the

California Constitution and are liable to Plaintiffs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and under

the California Constitution.

73. The County has implemented decisions that affect annexation in a manner that

intentionally discriminates against Plaintiffs based in substantial part on the race, ethnicity,

ancestry, color or national origin of the residents of the Latino Unincorporated

Neighborhoods. In so doing, the County has violated and is violating Plaintiffs right to the

equal protection of the laws as provided by the 14th Amendment to the United States



16/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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


Constitution and the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and are liable to

Plaintiffs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and under the California Constitution.

SECOND COUNT

(Violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000d and 42 U.S.C. 1983)(Against Defendants City and County)


forth herein.

75. On information and belief, the City receives federal financial assistance to

provide many of the services described herein including, but not limited to, land use

decisions and the provision of municipal services including sidewalks, street lights,

drainage, sewage, law enforcement protection and bilingual services.

76. On information and belief, the County receives federal financial assistance to

provide many of the services described herein including, but not limited to, annexation and

land use decisions and the provision of municipal services including sidewalks, street lights,

drainage, sewage, law enforcement protection and bilingual services.

77. Defendants provide such services in a manner that intentionally discriminates

against Plaintiffs based in substantial part on the race, ethnicity, ancestry, color or national

origin of the residents of the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods in violation of 42

U.S.C. 2000d, also known as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 601 and are liable

to Plaintiffs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.

THIRD COUNT

(Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,Government Code 12955(l))

(Against Defendants City and County)


forth herein.

79. Defendants, through public land use practices, decisions, and authorizations,

provide municipal services as described herein in a manner that discriminates against

Plaintiffs based in substantial part on the race, ethnicity, ancestry, color or national origin of



17/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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


the residents of the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods in violation of California

Government Code 12955(l).

FOURTH COUNT

(Violation of Government Code 11135 and 22 CCR 98000 - 98413)(Against Defendants City, County, and Sheriff)


forth herein.

81. On information and belief, the City receives financial assistance from the state of

California to provide many of the services described herein including, but not limited to,

land use decisions and the provision of municipal services including sidewalks, curbs,

gutters, sewage, law enforcement protection and bilingual services.

82. On information and belief, Defendants County and Sheriff receive financial

assistance from the state of California to provide many of the services described herein

including, but not limited to, the annexation and land use decisions and the provision of

municipal services including sidewalks, curbs, gutters, sewage, law enforcement protection

and bilingual services.

83. Defendants provide such services in a manner that has the purpose or effect of

unlawfully denying Plaintiffs full and equal access to the benefits of programs that are

conducted, operated and administered by the state based in substantial part on the race,

national origin, ethnic group identification, ancestry or color of the residents of the Latino

Unincorporated Neighborhoods in violation of California Government Code 11135(a) and

its implementing regulations.

84. Defendants provide such services in a manner that has the purpose or effect of

subjecting Plaintiffs to discrimination under programs that are conducted, operated and

administered by the state based in substantial part on the race, national origin, ancestry,

ethnic group identification, or color of the residents of the Latino Unincorporated

Neighborhoods in violation of California Government Code 11135(a) and its

implementing regulations.



18/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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


FIFTH COUNT(Common Law and Statutory Nuisance)

(Violation of California Civil Code 3479, 3480 and/or 3481)(Against Defendant County)


forth herein.

86. Plaintiffs own and/or lease property in Stanislaus County.

87. By unreasonably failing to install or maintain services including, but not limited

to, drainage, sidewalks, street lights, traffic control signs, properly maintained roads,

Defendant has created conditions that are harmful to the health of Plaintiffs, are indecent or

offensive to the senses, and/or are an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to

interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property. In doing so, Defendant has

violated and are violating California Civil Code 3479, 3480 and/or 3481.

88. These conditions have interfered and do interfere wi th Plaintiffs use or

enjoyment of their land and are a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm.

89. These conditions affect a substantial number of people in the community and are

of the nature that an ordinary person would be reasonably disturbed by them.

V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

90. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties relating to

the legal rights and duties of the Plaintiffs and Defendants for which Plaintiffs desire a

declaration of rights.

91. Defendants wrongful conduct has caused and will continue to cause immediate

and irreparable injury to Plaintiffs.

92. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for the injuries they currently suffer

and will otherwise continue to suffer.

93. Wherefore, the Plaintiffs seek relief, including but not limited to:

(i.) A declaratory judgment that the Defendants policies, practices, and

procedures in providing services to the Plaintiffs and annexing unincorporated areas have a

discriminatory effect and violate state law and regulations, federal law and regulations, and



19/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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


the Constitution of the United States;

(ii) A declaratory judgment that the Defendants have engaged in intentional

discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, ancestry or national origin against

Plaintiffs and other residents of the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods by providing

inferior basic services to Plaintiffs and the neighborhoods in which they reside;

(iii) A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from

continuing to follow the illegal policies, practices, and procedures that this complaint

specifies, including but not limited to,

a. Enjoining Defendants from failing to provide an adequate level of services

to the Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods;

b. Enjoining Defendants from expending or allocating funds for law

enforcement services, street and neighborhood maintenance, traffic control

services, refuse removal and other municipal, county or public services in

a manner that further promotes the disparate level of services between

White unincorporated urban neighborhoods and Latino Unincorporated

Neighborhoods;

c. Enjoining Defendants from failing to establish law enforcement services

and procedures in Latino Unincorporated Neighborhoods that are staffed

and funded at levels comparable to those in White unincorporated urban

areas and which have comparable response times and are commensurate

with the population densities of these areas;

d. Enjoining Defendants from failing to ensure that adequate bilingual staff

fluent in Spanish are hired and retained in order to provide equal access fo

Spanish speakers to public services;

(iv) A preliminary and permanent injunction commanding Defendants to take all

steps necessary to dismantle the dual system of basic public services;

(v) An award of Plaintiffs attorneys fees, costs, and prejudgment interest

pursuant to California Gov. Code 1021.5 and 12989.2, 42 U.S.C. 1988 and 3613(c)(2



20/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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


and other applicable provisions of law; and

(vi) Such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: April 6, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

HELLER EHRMAN LLP

By _s/ Brian P. Brosnahan________________ BRIAN P. BROSNAHAN

BRIAN P. BROSNAHAN (Cal. State Bar No. 112894)

BETHANY A. GLOVER (Cal. State Bar No. 209423)ANAGHA DANDEKAR CLIFFORD (Cal. State Bar No.233806)HELLER EHRMAN LLP333 Bush StreetSan Francisco, CA 94104-2878Telephone: (415) 772-6000Facsimile: (415) 772-6268

ROBERT RUBIN (Cal. State Bar No. 85084)CHHAYA MALIK (Cal. State Bar No. 228581)LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS131 Steuart Street, Suite 400

San Francisco, CA 94105Telephone: (415) 543-9444Facsimile: (415) 543-0296

DONALD BROWN (Cal. State Bar No. 83347)ELIZABETH A. BROWN (Cal. State Bar No. 193540)COVINGTON & BURLING LLPOne Front StreetSan Francisco, CA 94111Telephone: (415) 591-6000Facsimile: (415) 591-6091

HOWARD A. SLAVITT (Cal. State Bar No. 172840)

KAREN L. JENNINGS (Cal. State Bar No. 197046)COBLENTZ, PATCH, DUFFY & BASS LLPOne Ferry Building, Suite 200San Francisco, CA 94111Telephone: (415) 772-5738Facsimile: (415) 989-1663

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



21/21

Heller

Ehrman LLP

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

CYNTHIA L. RICE (Cal. State Bar No. 87630)ILENE J. JACOBS (Cal. State Bar No. 126812)JACK E. DANIEL (Cal. State Bar No. 133498)CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.801 15th Street, Suite BModesto, CA 95354Telephone: (209)577-3811Facsimile: (209) 577-1098

Attorneys for Plaintiff Ena Lopez and Alfonso Rivera


CCCIvModestoamended

Documents

Transcript of CCCIvModestoamended