Correspondence - Non Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Case 8:23-cv-00504. Document I Piled 03/20/23 Page 43 of 45 Page 1D #:43 1 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 169, inclusive, as set forth above. 2 171. For all of the reasons set forth above, sections 4 and 8 of the Urgency 3 Ordinance, sections 9 and 16 of the Permanent Ordinance, and the discriminatory CUP 4 Requirement in Municipal Code § 41-313.5(p) are unconstitutional and void. 5 172. As such, the City has a ministerial duty to void, vacate, and strike sections 4 6 and 8 of the Urgency Ordinance, sections 9 and 16 of the Permanent Ordinance, and the 7 discriminatory CUP Requirement in Municipal Code § 41-313.5(p). 8 173. SOS is without an adequate remedy at law, because the violations of 9 constitutional rights that it and its patients have suffered and continue to suffer cannot be 10 adequately compensated for by money damages. 11 SEVENTH CLAIM, FOR RELIEF 12 (Declaratory Relief re Expiration Of The Urgency Ordinance, Under Cal. Gov. 13 Code § 65858, Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1060 & 28 U.S.C. § 2201) 14 174. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every 15 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 127, inclusive, as set forth above. 16 175. Under California Government Code section 65858(a), the Urgency 17 Ordinance expired by operation of law on February 3, 2023, 45 days after it was 18 adopted. 19 176. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between SOS and the City 20 relative to their respective rights and duties in that SOS contends that the Urgency 21 Ordinance has expired under California law, while the City disputes that contention and 22 contends that the Urgency Ordinance is valid, enforceable, and still in full force and 23 effect, and that its urgency ordinances prohibiting and restricting land uses are not 24 required to comply with the expiration period set forth in Government Code section 43 Complaint of Share Our Selves