Free Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 4:08-cv-02313-WDB

Document 1

Filed 05/05/2008

Page 1 of 15

...
:: .....·.~ ·.~.""
mal: tyan laQ.l us aW.com 2 DA!\rrEL C. APIDUS (Bar No. 227170) I' Email: dan(Q21ajliduslaw.com O.b ~g/G i 3 ITMD,BAtJ'CH(BarNo.199454) Email: Jimai).laoiCius1aw.com ~ ~1·.) _ ..-i1- L.~P-IDUs...&:LAPIDUS . ....... _ ..._.'. I'tf,'-'
.. ~ ..,;~ ~J7l . \APROFESSIONAL[A\V'-CURPTIRAIJO.i~'-'-'----"-"-'_ .. _'" ",.~.' r 5 177 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE ,s.qy~~,.~~ ~;j I BEVERLY HILLS CALIFORNIA 90212 ~~ ~~~ ~t~
...

1 ERYJ\NI p. L~APIJRdQ~1(~~N~~..1~~~~8)

.

. .. 1:' 1 :"'~ . ···.1
,~..;;;

.....

I"

__6_#Llrnt~1~~~~~~_..~.~.... ..
9

~

7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs V-Haul Co. of California 8 and Amerco Real Estate Company . uNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
11

~

NORTEBRN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
V-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA, a

12

CASE NO.:.

13

California corporation; and AMERCO

COMPLAINT FOR: .

coa ~ 02313·

'14 REAL ESTATE COMPANY, a Nevada (1) VIOLATIONS OF THE FIFTH corporation; . AMENDMENT'TO THE U.S. 15 CONSTITUTION(TA~GS CLAUSE); Plaintiffs,

16

17 19

VS.

(2) VIOLATIONS OF THE

18 CITY OF BERKELEY, a municipality; Defendant.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
(DUE PROCESS CLAUSE);

(3) VIOLATIONS OF THE CLAUSE);

20
21

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (EOUAL PROTECTION

22 23
24

CLAUSE; (5) CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
(42 U.S.C. SEC. 1983); (6) VIOLATIONS OF CEOA

(4) VIOLATIONS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE

25

26
27
28

(PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SEC. 21000 ET SEQ.); AND

(7) DE~ARATORY RELIEF.

_ _ _ _ _- - - - - - - DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURy

COMPLAINT - 1


I
t

Case 4:08-cv-02313-WDB

Document 1

Filed 05/05/2008

Page 2 of 15

1 2

Plaintiffs V-Haul Co. of California ("V-Haul") and Amerco Real Estate
Company ("Amerco") allege as follows.

NATURE OF THE CASE
1.

3
4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23
24

V-Haul has served the City of Berkeley, its 100,000 residents and

the tens of thousands ofVniversity of California students living therein since 1975 by providing truck sharing, one way truck rentals and the retail sale of moving supplies at affordable prices. It is no coincidence that V-Haul's San Pablo Avenue facility is close to the University of California campus. Consistent with the local "green" philosophy and the City's purported policy, U-Haul has dedicated itself to protecting and preserving the surrounding environment by maintaining an environmentally-friendly truck-sharing business model limiting harmful carbon dioxide emissions and removing polluting vehicles from the streets. Despite V-Haul's service to the community and its decades-long relationship with the people of Berkeley, Defendant is conducting a campaign to force U-Haul out of the community. Among other things, Defendant has attempted to impose unlawful, disproportionate, and punitive sanctions on D Haul, unreasonably revoked V-Haul's use permit to operate its facility, discriminated against V-Haul and its customers, and punished and retaliated against V-Haul for asserting its First Amendment rights to challenge Defendant's improper conduct. Through this action, Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendant responsible for its illegal and unconstitutional actions. THE PARTIES 2. 3. V-Haul is a California corporation with its principal place of Amerco is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business business in Fremont, California. in Phoenix, Arizona.

25

26 27 28

COMPLAINT - 2


Case 4:08-cv-02313-WDB

Document 1

Filed 05/05/2008

Page 3 of 15

1 2
3
4

4.

Defendant City of Berkeley is a public entity organized and existing

under the laws of the State of California.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5.

This action arises under the Commerce Clause and the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as well as under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they are part of the same case or controversy as Plaintiffs' federal constitutional and statutory claims, in that they arise from a common nucleus of operative facts.
6.

Defendant City of Berkeley, a citizen of this judicial district, has

systematic and continuous contacts with this judicial district and has purposefully availed itself of the rights and privileges of conducting business in this judicial district. Further, a substantial part of the events and!or omissions giving rise to the claims against Defendant occurred in this judicial district. Therefore, venue is proper and assignment of this case to the N orthem District of California is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c).
INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

7.

This case is properly assigned to the Oakland Division of this Court

pursuant to Local Rule 3-2(c) because Defendant is located in, and the acts and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims took place in, Alameda County.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

8.

For over sixty years, U-Haul and its related companies have

engaged in the self-moving business. V-Haul rents moving equipment and

COMPLAINT - 3


Case 4:08-cv-02313-WDB

Document 1

Filed 05/05/2008

Page 4 of 15

1 vehicles, and sells moving related supplies and materials, to self-move 2 3 4 5 households. V-Haul's business model is based on the principle of sharing the costs of truck ownership among many users and facilitating the mobility of the population of the Vnited States and Canada. 9. V-Haul's "Truck Share" business model permits customers to rent

6 trucks for minimal amounts of time (sometimes just a few hours) at a very 7 reasonable cost, and then return the trucks to conveniently located moving centers 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and neighborhood independent dealers to make the trucks promptly available for sharing by other customers. V-Haul's Truck Share program makes the occasional 10. V-Haul's business model, however, depends upon convenient,

lOuse of large capacity trucks affordable for the average consumer. neighborhood-based rental locations within a close proximity to customers' homes and businesses. 11. The U-Haul facility in the City of Berkeley is located at 2100 San Pablo Avenue, near or about Addison Street, in the West Berkeley Commercial District of Southern Berkeley. 12. property. 13. The majority ofU-Haul's customers are citizens and residents of the immediate area. It is well recognized that as an affordable alternative, V-Haul is often the choice of protected classes of people who by definition have limited choices. Moreover, studies abound regarding this relationship of consumer choices for the elderly, African Americans, disabled, single female heads of households, undocumented aliens and numerous other ethnic and religious groups. In fact, in Berkeley V-Haul often is their only alternative when contemplating a household move. 14. In or around June 1975, V-Haul applied for and received a use permit to operate at 2100 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, CA, Vse Permit No. 7575. Amerco is the owner in fee simple of the 2100 San Pablo Avenue

COMPLAINT - 4


Case 4:08-cv-02313-WDB

Document 1

Filed 05/05/2008

Page 5 of 15

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

15.

U-Haul has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in its

business activities in the City of Berkeley and has operated its business within the City of Berkeley for more than thirty years. Approximately 12,000 local residents used U-Haul's services in 2007 alone and therefore approximately 360,000 local 16. The City of Berkeley has adopted a number of measures declaring

5 residents used V-HauI's services over a period of thirty years. its commitment to protecting the environment, particularly with respect to limiting or reducing emissions of carbon dioxide. Specifically, the City has adopted the Kyoto Protocol, and enacted Measure G, which declares that the City has "a goal of80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050." 17. Furthermore, in connection with California's Global Warming Solutions Act of2006 (AB32), the City of Berkeley has encouraged and assisted the operations of car share operators similar to U-HauI's Truck Share program, such as FlexCar, ZipCar and City Carshare. 18. V-Haul's business model is consistent with the City's professed environmental goal of limiting the emission of carbon dioxide, as well as the policies of the state of California. In fact, V-Haul is an active member of the AB32 Implementation Group. 19. The availability ofU-Haul vehicles acts to reduce the number of large capacity vehicles in and around Berkeley. Each U-Haul truck helps keep nineteen privately owned large capacity vehicles off the road. This in tum reduces greenhouse gas emissions. 20. Further, a reduction in the distance between its locations and its customers means less driving distance for customers, which directly translates into a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, for every mile closer to the customer, carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by approximately twelve pounds per transaction.

COMPLAINT - 5


Case 4:08-cv-02313-WDB

1 2 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

21.

Thus, V-Haul's location at San Pablo, which is within walking

·

Document 1

Filed 05/05/2008

Page 6 of 15

distance of the Vniversity of California campus and mass transit facilities, is key travel distance between V-Haul's San Pablo facility and the customers who use it is just three miles. Without the San Pablo facility, these customers would have to travel to other, more distant facilities, with correspondingly greater environmental impact, or use other environmentally unfriendly alternatives. 22. Despite this, and contrary to its own environmental policies, Defendant recently began and carried out a campaign of improper, unfair, and discriminatory conduct towards V-Haul. 23. For example, Defendant has issued citations to V-Haul without legal or factual basis. Defendant's officials even personally delivered these citations rather than simply mailing them, for the purpose of intimidation and disruption of V-Haul's operations. Defendant arbitrarily and without legitimate justification treats U-Haul worse than similarly situated businesses, including car rental companies and car share operators, such as ZipCar, FlexCar and City CarShare, that are allowed by the Defendant to park their cars on City streets and other public locations including public parking lots without the limitation or the unfair restrictions and conditions imposed on V-Haul. 24. U-Haul successfully challenged some of Defendant's conduct. Defendant responded by further unfair and discriminatory acts in order to punish and retaliate against V-Haul for exercising its First Amendment right to petition for a redress of grievances. Among other things, Defendant revoked V-Haul's Use Permit No. 7575. Without this Use Permit, V-Haul's operations at the San Pablo facility will be severely limited, causing damage to both V-Haul and Amerco.

3 to V-Haul's role in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Specifically, the average

COMPLAINT - 6


Case 4:08-cv-02313-WDB

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10

25.

Neither V-Haul nor Amerco has received any compensation from

·

Document 1

Filed 05/05/2008

Page 7 of 15

Defendant for the damage to, and reduction in value of, their respective property rights as a result of Defendant's acts. 26. Many of Defendant's officials have ignored many of V-Haul's letters, and ignored and/or refused V-Haul's requests for meetings to discuss the San Pablo facility. When City officials have agreed to speak to V-Haul's representatives, they informed V-Haul that the City does not want V-Haul to operate in the area, and that it will not approve any permit application or request for a variance for which V-Haul might apply.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of Fifth Amendment (Takings Clause) to the Constitution of the
United States
(By V-Haul and Amerco)


11 12
13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

27. 28.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1 through 26 of The Fifth Amendment of the Vnited States Constitution states, in

its Complaint. relevant part: "No person shall be deprived of property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." 29. Defendant, by the acts and omissions described herein, has engaged in a taking, for public use, without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. 30. property. 31. 32. Defendant has engaged in such activity for public use. Defendant has not compensated Plaintiffs for its taking of Plaintiffs' Specifically Defendant has denied V-Haul the use of its operations and use of its property as a V-Haul facility, and impaired the value of Amerco's

operations and property.

COMPLAINT - 7


Case 4:08-cv-02313-WDB

Document 1

Filed 05/05/2008

Page 8 of 15

1 2 3


33.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs

have been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial.


4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20

SECOND CAVSE OF ACTION
Violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
(By V-Haul and Amerco)

34. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1 through 33 of its Complaint. 35. Plaintiffs have been unconstitutionally deprived of property through

governmental regulation. 36. 37. Defendant's acts and omissions were arbitrary and irrational. The arbitrary and irrational actions of the Defendant were motivated

by, among other things, a malicious intent to punish Plaintiffs and retaliate against them for challenging the Defendant's actions, and not by any legitimate regulatory concern. 38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs

have been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (By V-Haul)
39. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1 through 38 of its Complaint. 40. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

United States Constitution provides: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due

28

COMPLAINT - 8


Case 4:08-cv-02313-WDB

Document 1

Filed 05/05/2008

Page 9 of 15

1 process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection

2 of the laws."
3
4

41.

Defendant's acts and omissions described herein violate the Equal

Protection Clause because, among other reasons, Defendant has unfairly targeted and discriminated against V-Haul. Among other things, Defendant has imposed on V-Haul requirements, scrutiny, and disproportionate sanctions to which other persons operating similar businesses in the City of Berkeley are not subject, i.e., moving truck and trailer rental agencies, car rental companies and car share operators, such as ZipCar, FlexCar and City CarShare. 42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, V-Haul has

5
6

7

8
9 10

11
12
13 14 15

been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violations of Interstate Commerce Clause

of the Constitution of the United States
(By U-Haul)
43. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1 through 42 of its Complaint. 44. V-Haul's customers use V-Haul's trucks to move into and out of the

16
17 18 19

20
21

State of California, and use the San Pablo Avenue location to pick up and/or drop off rented V-Haul trucks. 45. By the acts and omissions described herein, Defendant has placed an

22
23

unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, which will have a direct affect on V-Haul, its business and its customers, and has discriminated against out of state residents. 46. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, V-Haul has

24
25

26

27 28

been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial.

COMPLAINT - 9


Case 4:08-cv-02313-WDB

Document 1

Filed 05/05/2008

Page 10 of 15

1

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Civil Rights Violations
(42 U.S.C. Section 1983)
(By U-Haul and Amerco)

47. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1 through 46 of

2
3
4

5
6 7 8
9

its Complaint. 48. The Civil Rights Act of 1871, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides,

in relevant part: "Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law ...." 49. Defendant's conduct as alleged herein, including, but not limited to,

10
11

12 13 14 15

their violations of Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Interstate Commerce Clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution, constitute infringement upon Plaintiffs' rights, privileges and/or immunities. 50. law. 51. Based on Defendant's illegal and unconstitutional conduct, Defendant's acts and omissions were committed under color of state

16
17 18 19 20 21

22
23
24 25

Defendant has violated the Civil Rights Act of 1871. 52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs

have been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial.

26 27 28

III III III

CONlPLAINT - 10

Case 4:08-cv-02313-WDB

Document 1

Filed 05/05/2008

1

SIXTH CAVSE OF ACTION


·


Page 11 of 15

2 3 4
5 6 7 53.

Violations of the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 Et Seq.)
(By V-Haul and Amerco)

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1 through 52 of

its Complaint. 54. In revoking V-Haul 's Use Permit, Defendant has caused an increase

8
9

in carbon dioxide emissions and harmful greenhouse gas emissions by requiring residents seeking the use of moving trucks which would previously have only been temporarily rented from V-Haul, to instead buy such trucks or obtain them from dealers at more remote locations. 55. Defendant's revocation ofU-Haul's Use Permit constitutes a project

10 11

12

13

as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").

14

56.

Defendant violated CEQA by, among other things, failing to conduct

15
16
17 18

the environmental review and impact analysis required by CEQA.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Relief (By U-Haul and Amerco) 57.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1 through 56 of

19 20
21

its Complaint.

22
23 24 25 26 27

58.

As articulated and alleged herein, an actual and legal controversy has

arisen between Plaintiffs and the Defendant. 59. Plaintiffs allege that U-Haul has the right to operate its business

within the City of Berkeley in compliance with local zoning and reasonable business restrictions and that Defendant's conduct, as alleged herein, is unlawful and unconstitutional.

28

COMPLAINT - 11


Case 4:08-cv-02313-WDB

Document 1

Filed 05/05/2008

Page 12 of 15

1

60.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that

2
3 4

Defendant denies Plaintiffs' contentions and asserts that its conduct was lawful and constitutional. 61. A judicial declaration of the rights and duties of the parties is

5 6 7 8

necessary to avoid a multiplicity of actions and to permit V-Haul to continue to engage in its lawful business operations without unlawful and unreasonable interference by the Defendant.

9
10
11 12 13
14

PRAYER
Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: 1. For the First Cause of Action: compensatory damages for the actual

harm caused by Defendant's unlawful conduct; other monetary damages in an amount according to proof; a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendant during the pendency of this action from unlawfully prohibiting or preventing V Haul from conducting business in the City of Berkeley; a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from unlawfully prohibiting or preventing V-Haul from conducting business in the City of Berkeley; recovery of reasonable attorney's fees and costs as authorized by statute; and for such other and further legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper; 2. For the Second Cause of Action: compensatory damages for the actual

IS
16

17
18

19 20 21

harm caused by Defendant's unlawful conduct; other monetary damages in an amount according to proof; a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendant during the pendency of this action from unlawfully prohibiting or preventing V Haul from conducting business in the City of Berkeley; a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from unlawfully prohibiting or preventing V-Haul from conducting business in the City of Berkeley; recovery of reasonable attorney's fees and costs as authorized by statute; and for such other and further legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper;

22 23
24

25
26

27 28

CONIPLAINT - 12


Case 4:08-cv-02313-WDB

1 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3.

For the Third Cause of Action: compensatory damages for the actual

·


Document 1

Filed 05/05/2008

Page 13 of 15

2 harm caused by Defendant's unlawful conduct; other monetary damages in an amount according to proof; a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendant during the pendency of this action from unlawfully prohibiting or preventing u and a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from unlawfully prohibiting or preventing U-Haul from conducting business in the City of Berkeley; recovery of and further legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper; 4. For the Fourth Cause of Action: compensatory damages for the actual harm caused by Defendant's unlawful conduct; other monetary damages in an amount according to proof; a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendant during the pendency of this action from unlawfully prohibiting or preventing U Haul from conducting business in the City of Berkeley; a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from unlawfully prohibiting or preventing U-Haul from conducting business in the City of Berkeley; recovery of reasonable attorney's fees and costs as authorized by statute; and for such other and further legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper; 5. For the Fifth Cause of Action: compensatory damages for the actual harm caused by Defendant's unlawful conduct; other monetary damages in an amount according to proof; other statutory damages as legally authorized; a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendant during the pendency of this action from unlawfully prohibiting or preventing U-Haul from conducting business in the City of Berkeley; a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from unlawfully prohibiting or preventing V-Haul from conducting business in the City of Berkeley; recovery of reasonable attorney's fees and costs as authorized by statute; and for such other and further legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper;

S Haul from conducting business in the City of Berkeley; a preliminary injunction

8 reasonable attorney's fees and costs as authorized by statute; and for such other

COMPLAINT - 13


Case 4:08-cv-02313-WDB

Document 1

Filed 05/05/2008

Page 14 of 15

1

6.

For the Sixth Cause of Action: an order requiring an environmental

2
impact report and other analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and other impact; a
3
temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendant during the pendency of this
4
action from unlawfully prohibiting or preventing V-Haul from conducting

5 business in the City of Berkeley; a preliminary injunction and a permanent
6
injunction enjoining Defendant from unlawfully prohibiting or preventing V-Haul

7
from conducting business in the City of Berkeley; recovery of reasonable
8
attorney's fees and costs as authorized by statute; and for such other and further

9
legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper; and 10
11


7.

For the Seventh Cause of Action: a declaration from the Court as to

the parties' respective rights and obligations; costs of suit; and for such other and

12
further legal and equitable relief as may be deemed just and proper.
13

14
pATED: May 2, 2008

15
16


LAPIDUS & LAPIDUS A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

17

18
19


DANIEL C. LAPID Attorneys for Plaint fs U-Haul Co. of California and Amerco Real Estate Company

20

21


22

23


24

25

26

27


28


COWIPLAINT - 14


Case 4:08-cv-02313-WDB
i

1

·

Document 1

Filed 05/05/2008

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

·

Page 15 of 15

2

3
aJury.

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of all issues which may be tried to

4
5
DATED: May 2, 2008
6


LAPIDUS & LAPIDUS A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

7

8

9

10
11
12


DANIEL C. LAP Attorneys for Plat tiffU-Haul Co. of California and Amerco Real Estate Company

13

14


15

16


17
18

19


20

21


22

23
24

25


26

27
28


COMPLAINT - 15