This suit is filed on behalf of all California Taxpayers and will force the DA's Office, Family Support Operations, to pay the money it owes to families in the LA County area. We urge other individuals to file similar suits in other Counties where this type of Corruption is going on. $25 million has been pigeonholed by corrupt officials!
The text of this suit follows and can be used as a template for similar relief in other Counties across the nation. It costs taxpayers in California, $.40 for each dollar collected (but maybe not distributed) for child and spousal support. Many Counties do a worse job. (see Orlando Sentinel article). The text of the Complaint follows.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
1. This Complaint requests injunctive relief and a writ of mandate requiring Defendant GIL
GARCETTI1 the District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles, to immediately disburse
approximately $25 million which he is "holding" as "Child Support
Collections on Hold" and which he is not paying to the custodial parents to whom a
portion of such monies are due, the County of Los Angeles welfare department, to whom a
portion of such monies are due, and to the payors of such funds who, by law, must be paid
a refund of monies paid in the event that the custodial parent is not located within six
months from the time of payment.
2. The District Attorney has admitted to the Los Angeles County Board of supervisors in a
Memorandum dated October 9, 1998, That a minimum of $18 million is being held as
"Child Support Collections on Hold" as of October 1998.
2. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's authority to collect child support payments
is set forth in sections 4200, 4201, 4203 and 4204 of the Family Code. Section 4203 makes
the County of Los Angeles, i.e., the taxpayers, responsible for expenses and fees incurred
in the collection of child support payments. Further, the Welfare and Institutions Code,
section 11475.3 et seq., governs the actions of the District Attorney. In particular,
section 11475.3 requires that the District Attorney make all reasonable efforts to locate
the obligee of child support payments for a period of six months and deliver the payments
to such obligee. If the District Attorney is unable to locate the obligee within the
six-month period, he or she shall return the undeliverable payments to the obligor.
Further, pursuant to section 11475.3, in the event that the child is receiving aid, the
first $50.00 of any amount of child support collected in a month shall be paid to the
recipient.
4. In fiscal year 1997-98 the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office collected
approximately $257 million in child support payments. The cost to the public for such
collections in fiscal year 1997-98 was approximately $104,809,000.00, or approximately
$.40 for every dollar collected.
5. As of the present time, neither the United States government, the state of California,
nor the County of Los Angeles have taken any action requiring the District Attorney to
disburse the monies on "hold". This failure is causing the taxpayers, the
recipients of the child support, the welfare system, and the payors of child support to
suffer hardship on a daily basis.
DESCRIPTION OF PLAINTIFF
6. Plaintiff JOHN R. SILVA is a citizen of California and a resident of the County of Los
Angeles. Plaintiff has filed state tax returns and has paid taxes in the County of Los
Angeles for the past five years. Plaintiff has paid child support payments to the Court
Trustee pursuant to a court order dated November 29, 1989, commencing at such tine as his
former wife received Aid for Dependent children ("AFDC"} payments for the
six-month period of time from August 1989 through February 1990. Such child support
payments by Plaintiff were $135.00 per month, plus a 2% service charge of $2.70, for a
total monthly payment of $137.70.
7. plaintiff brings this suit as a party acting for the interests of himself and all
taxpayer contributors to the County of Los Angeles District Attorney's Office Bureau of
Family Support, child Support Collections Fund, as paid to the Court Trustee or such other
person ordered by the court.
DESCRIPTION OF DEFENDANTS
8. Defendant GIL CARCETTI ("Garcetti") is the District Attorney of the county of
Los Angeles. Garcetti is the chief Enforcement Officer for the collection of child support
payments ordered by the court to be paid to the Court Trustee. He maintains a unit
entitled "The family Support Unit" whose "Mission Statement" is to
enforce the financial responsibility of parents to support their children. Such unit is
entitled "The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office Bureau of Family Support
operations". Such unit had a budget for fiscal 1997-98 of approximately
$104,809,000.00. Such unit collected in fiscal year 1997-98 approximately $257 million.
Such unit failed or refused to disburse to lawful recipients, including custodial parents,
the County of Los Angeles Welfare Department, and individuals who paid into the Child
support Collections Fund by court order and the custodial parents to whom such funds
should have been paid were not located within six months of date of payment.
9. The Los Angeles county District Attorney's authority to collect child support payments
is set forth in sections 42OO, 4201, 4203 and 4204 of the Family Code. section 4203 makes
the county of Los Angeles, i.e., the taxpayers, responsible for expenses and fees incurred
in the collection of child support payments. Further, the Welfare and Institutions Code,
section 11475, et seq., governs the actions of the District Attorney. In particular,
section 11475.3 requires that the District Attorney make all reasonable efforts to locate
the obligee of child support payments for a period of six months and deliver the payments
to such obligee. If the District Attorney is unable to locate the obligee within the
six-month period, he or she shall return the undeliverable payments to the obligor.
further, pursuant to section 11475.2, in the event that the child is receiving aid, the
first $50.00 of any amount of child support collected in a month shall be paid to the
recipient.
10. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of those Defendants sued herein
as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues said defendants by said fictitious
names. Plaintiff will ask for leave to amend this complaint to show the true names and
capacities of said Defendants when the same have been ascertained. plaintiff is informed
and believes, and thereupon alleges, that each of said fictitiously named Defendants is
responsible, in some manner, for the acts, occurrences, and omissions alleged herein and
proximately responsible for Plaintiff's damages.
11. plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon al- leges, that, at all times
mentioned herein, GARCETTI and each of the DOE Defendants, acted as agents, servants and
employees of one another, and that each of the acts of GARCETTI and said DOE Defendants
described herein occurred within the course and scope of said agency and/or employment.
STANDING
12. Plaintiff J0HN R. SILVA is a "taxpayer". plaintiff brings this suit on
behalf of himself, on behalf of all other persons and entities paying taxes into the
general revenue of the state of California, and on behalf of all residents of the state of
California, and the county of Los Angeles, with an interest in having the laws of the
state of California properly executed and the duties of its public officials properly
carried out. Plaintiff is duly authorized to bring this action to enforce a public right
and to procure enforcement of a public duty. Plaintiff has paid child support payments to
the Court Trustee pursuant to court order. Plaintiff is duly authorized to bring this suit
on behalf of all individuals who have paid child support payments to the Court Trustee
pursuant to court order and on behalf of all persons or entities to whom such payments
should be disbursed.
13. Plaintiff is duly authorized to bring this action and to seek injunctive relief under
section 526a of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
14. Plaintiff is duly authorized to bring this action as a taxpayer of the state pursuant
to section 526a of the California Code of Civil Procedure to require GARCETTI to
immediately disburse approximately $25 million which he is "holding" as
"Child Support collections on Hold" and which he is not paying to the custodial
parents to whom a portion of such monies are due, the County of Los Angeles Welfare
Department, to whom a portion of such monies are due, and to the payors of such funds who,
by law, must be paid a refund of monies paid in the event that the custodial parent is not
located within six months from the time of payment.
15. Plaintiff is duly authorized to bring this action as a taxpayer pursuant to section
526a of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and for a writ of mandate pursuant to
section 1085 of the California code of Civil Procedure, to require GARCETTI to immediately
disburse approximately $25 million which he is "holding" as Child Support
Collections on Ho1d" and which he is not paying to the custodial parents to whom a
portion of such monies are due, the county of Los Angeles welfare Department, to whom a
portion of such monies are due, and to the payors of such funds who, by law, must be paid
a refund of monies paid in the event that the custodial parent is not located within six
months from the time of payment. The acts which GARCETTI is required to perform are
ministerial acts.
16. Plaintiff bas sent a demand letter to the County of Los Angeles demanding that it
bring suit to require GARCETTI to immediately disburse approximately $25 million which he
is "holding" as "Child Support Collections on Hold" and which he is
not paying to the custodial parents to whom a portion of such monies are due, the County
of Los Angeles Welfare Department, to whom a portion of such monies are due, and to the
payors of such funds who, by law, must be paid a refund of monies paid in the event that
the custodial parent is not located within six months from the time of payment. A true and
correct copy of said demand letter, marked as Exhibit "1", is attached hereto
and incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
ALLEGATIONS FOR ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
17. On September 6, 1984, plaintiff was ordered to pay support and maintenance of their
minor child in the sum of $150.00 per month, on the 31st of each, commencing August 31,
1984. Such order did not require such payments to be made through the court. A true and
correct of such September 6, 1984, Order is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 2, and
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
18. On March 4. 1985, a judgment was entered in the case of John Ray Silva v. Suzette Rene
Silva, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. NVD 02301, dissolving the marriage as of March
4, 1985, and ordering support of the minor child at $125.00 per week, commencing February
11, 1985. such order did not require payments to be made through the court. A true and
correct copy of such March 4, 1985, Order is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 3, and
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
19. On July 18, 1985, such order was modified to be $325.00, payable on the 1st and 15th
of each month, as of October 15, 1985. such order did not require payments to be made
through the court. A true and correct copy of the July 18, 1985, Order is attached hereto,
marked as Exhibit 4, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
20. In or about August 1989, Plaintiff's former wife received AFDC payments. such payments
continued from August 1989 through February 1990, i.e., a seven-month period. such
payments discontinued in February 1990 and have never been recommenced.
21. On November 29, 1989, the July 18, 1985, order was modified to reduce child support to
$135.00 per month, retroactive to November 1, 1989, and payments were required to be paid
through the Court Trustee, in and for the County of Los Angeles, State of California, for
the first time, pursuant to Civil Code section 4702(a) (welfare), as stated on the order.
A true and correct of the November 29, 1989, Order is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit
5, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
22. Plaintiff made all of the payments and complied with his obligation as shown by the
affidavit of Suzette Rene Silva, dated October 1, 1998. A true and correct of said
affidavit is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 6, and incorporated herein by reference as
if set forth in full.
23. Despite all of the payments having been made, on November 9, 1997, the Los Angeles
County District Attorneys Office, Bureau of Family Support Operations, filed a Notice of
Garnishment on plaintiff's wages for child support arrearages as of October 31, 1997, in
the sum of $64,482.26, and commenced deducting $2,069.46 per month from his paycheck. A
true and correct copy of said Notice of Garnishment is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit
7, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
24. On January 16, 1998, Plaintiff met with the County of Los Angeles District Attorney's
Office Bureau of Family Support Operations and executed a stipulation, without prejudice,
alleging that child support in the amount of $64,412.48 was owed. Such stipulation was
executed in error at the insistence of the Los Angeles County District Attorney. A true
and correct copy of said stipulation is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 8, and
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
25. Such stipulation was not filed with the court.
26. On January 20, 1998, four days later, Plaintiff filed a revocation of such stipulation
with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office. A true and correct copy of such
revocation is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 9, and incorporated herein by reference
as if set forth in full.
27. On February 16, 1998, despite the Stipulation having been revoked by Plaintiff on
January 20, 1998, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office executed the
Stipulation, without plaintiff's knowledge.
20. On March 18, 1998, despite the stipulation having been revoked on January 20, 1998,
the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office on an ex parte basis, with Plaintiff's
knowledge, filed the stipulation containing the false arrearage of $64,412.48 and
requiring payments of $860.00 on the first day of each month, commencing February 1, 1998,
and obtained the signature of R. Lee, Judge Pro Tem, ordering such false stipulation. A
true and correct copy of such false Stipulation and Order, containing the signature of
Judge R. Lee, is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 10, and incorporated herein by
reference as if set forth in full.
29. Such Stipulation and Order showed a case number NVD 0002301, while the revoked
stipulation showed a case number of 012.007.350. The stipulation filed by the Los Angeles
County District Attorney had been falsified as to the case number, in addition to having
been filed after such had been revoked.
30. Such Stipulation and Order also shows that it was signed on behalf of the Los Angeles
County District Attorney's office by Deputy District Attorney Jodi A. Sherman on February
12, 1998, approximately 22 days subsequent to the stipulation having been revoked. A
comparison of the stipulation with the Stipulation and Order shows that the revoked
stipulation did not contain a signature of the Deputy District Attorney.
31. On or about January 20, 1998, the County of Los Angeles Office of the District
Attorney, Bureau of Family Support Operations, sent to the Department of Public Social
Services a request to them to provide aid for dependent children case record information
for the child Charmaine Silva, daughter of Plaintiff and Suzette Rene Silva. Such request
showed that direct child support payments were made to the custodial parent for the period
of June 29, 1989, onwards. A response was received on April 13, 1998, showing aid paid to
the family commencing in August 1989 through February 1990, in the amount of $3,106.00. A
true and correct copy of said request and response is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit
11, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
32. On January 29, 1998, the Los Angeles County District Attorney, Bureau of Family
Support Operations, sent Plaintiff a Child Support Consumer credit Report Notification
showing a current monthly support obligation of $1,130.00 as of January 29, 1998, for a
total amount of $96,080.71. A true and correct copy of said Notification is attached
hereto, marked as Exhibit 12, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in
full.
33. On December 1, 1998, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office provided a
Summary of Account for John R. Silva commencing February 11, 1985, falsely claiming monies
for total welfare and non-welfare child support arrears in the amount of $61,670.00. A
true and correct copy of such Summary of Account is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 13,
and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
34. On December 1, 1998, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office provided a
Summary of Account for John R. Silva commencing February 11, 1985, falsely claiming monies
for welfare child support arrearages in the amount of $57,911.95. A true and correct copy
of said Summary of Account is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 14, and incorporated
herein by reference as if set forth in full.
35. Such claims are being contested in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. NVD 0002301 in
which a hearing has been set for September 15, 1999.
36. The accountings by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, as set forth in
Exhibits 13 and 14 hereto, are false as shown by the comparison of payments set forth in
Exhibit 15 hereto, which sets forth payments made to Plaintiff's former wife and to the
Court Trustee. No monies are owed by Plaintiff, to Plaintiff's knowledge.
37. Despite the collection of payments from 1989 onwards by the Court Trustee, the Los
Angeles County District Attorney's Office has not made any payments or has underpaid the
Los Angeles County "Welfare Department", and further has only made payments of
approximately $130.00 per month to Plaintiff's former wife, thereby underpaying Suzette
Rene Silva, even though Plaintiff had paid up to $900.00 per month, under the
garnishments.
38. During fiscal year 1997-98 the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office collected
$257 million in child support payments.
39 Of such monies, as of October 9, 1998, according to the Los Angeles District Attorney's
Office's Memorandum to the Board of Supervisors entitled "Child Support Collections
on Hold", $18 million of such monies is being held and not being paid to the
custodial parent or the Welfare Department. A true and correct copy of such Memorandum is
attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 16, and incorporated herein by reference as if set
forth in full.
40. Newspaper reports show the amount of money "on hold" to be as much as $25
million as of October 11, 1998.
41. Much of the $18-25 million is owed to families who can be located. The Los Angeles
County District Attorney's office admits that at least 14,OOO families who have claims to
these monies have not been found. Under state law, as set forth above, if a family cannot
be located, the money paid must be refunded to the paying parents after six months. Such
has not occurred and, instead the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office has
refused to refund any such monies. Further, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's
Office has also admitted, in The October 9, 1998, Memorandum, that it puts money on
"hold" if a dispute exists between the Los Angeles County District Attorney's
office and the non-custodial parent as to the amount of money owed, and if questions exist
between the Welfare Department and the custodial parent as to the division of the money
collected.
42. The amount of taxpayer money paid to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
to collect support payments in fiscal year 1996-97 was $89,184,924.00. The amount budgeted
for such collections in fiscal year 1997-98 was $104,809,000.00. The amount proposed to be
budgeted for such collections for fiscal year 1998-99 is $113,959,0OO.00. A true and
correct copy of page 18.3 of the County of Los Angeles 1998-99 Proposed Budget volume I,
showing such cost figures is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 17 and incorporated herein
by reference as if set forth in full.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR PRELIMINARY. PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 32, and each of them above,
as though fully set forth herein.
44. Unless GARCETTI is required to immediately disburse approximately $25 million which he
is "holding" as "Child Support Collections on Hold" and which he is
not paying to the custodial parents to whom a portion of such monies are due, the County
of Los Angeles Welfare Department, to whom a portion of such monies are due, and to the
payors of such funds who, by law, must be paid a refund of monies paid in the event that
the custodial parent is not located within six months from the time of payment, the legal
requirements that such monies be disbursed to the parental custodian, the County of Los
Angeles "Welfare Department", and the payors of such payments, will be violated.
45. Plaintiff and the taxpayers do not have any adequate remedy at law to require the Los
Angeles County District Attorney's Office to perform their statutory duties and disburse
such monies Unless such preliminary, permanent, and mandatory injunction is issued,
plaintiff and the taxpayers will continue to suffer undue hardship which cannot be
remedied by any damages, since the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office is funded
by the taxpayers.
SECOND CAUSE OP ACTION
FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 42, and paragraphs 44 and 45,
and each of them above, as though fully set forth herein.
47. Plaintiff does not have any adequate remedy at law, or otherwise, for the harm and
damage which has been, and will be, caused by GARCETTI'S continued refusal to comply with
the laws of the State of California and to immediately disburse approximately $25 million
which he is "holding" as "Child Support Collections on Hold" and which
he is not paying to the custodial parents to whom a portion of such monies are due, the
County of Los Angeles Welfare Department, to whom a portion of such monies are due, and to
the payors of such funds who, by law, must be paid a refund of monies paid in the event
that the custodial parent is not located within six months from the time of payment.
48. By his actions, through the failure to immediately disburse approximately $25 million
which he is "holding" as "Child Support Collections on Hold" and which
he is not paying to the custodial parents to whom a portion of such monies are due, the
County of Los Angeles Welfare Department, to whom a portion of such monies are due, and to
the payors of such funds who, by law, must be paid a refund of monies paid in the event
that the custodial parent is not located within six months from the tine of payment,
GARCETTI has failed, and is failing, to perform the legal duties required of him under the
laws of the State of California.
REOUEST POR ATTORNEYS' FEES
49. This Court has the power under the "substantial benefit doctrine" to award
attorneys' fees to a plaintiff where the litigation has conferred a substantial
nonpecuniary benefit on others.
50. This court has the power under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the
"Private Attorney General Doctrine," to award attorneys' fees to Plaintiff where
(a) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the
general public or a large class of persons, (b} the necessity and financial burden of
private enforcement are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) payment of such
fees is more appropriately made by Defendants rather than from the recovery of funds at
issue in the action.
51. This court has the power under the equitable "common fund" doctrine to award
attorneys' fees to Plaintiff where the recovery of monies from a fund benefits others as
well as plaintiff.
52. This court has the power under Government code section 800 to award attorneys fees to
a plaintiff where the actions of a public entity or official are found to be wholly
arbitrary or capricious.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment as follows:
1. For a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction requiring GARCETTI, his agents, servants,
assigns, officers, attorneys, successors, individuals within his control or under his
supervision, as well as all others acting in concert with him, to immediately disburse
approximately $25 million which he is "holding" as "Child Support
Collections on Hold" and which he is not paying to the custodial parents to whom a
portion of such monies are due, the county of Los Angeles Welfare Department, to whom a
portion of such monies are due, and to the payors of such funds who, by law, must be paid
a refund of monies paid in the event that the custodial parent is not located within six
months from the time of payment.
2. For Mandatory Injunction requiring GARCETTI, his agents, servants, assigns, officers,
attorneys, successors, individuals within his control or under his supervision, as well as
all others acting in concert with him, to immediately disburse approximately $25 million
which he is "holding" as "Chi1d Support Collections on Hold" and which
he is not paying to the custodial parents to whom a portion of such monies are due, the
County of Los Angeles Welfare Department, to whom a portion of such monies are due, and to
the payors of such funds who, by law, must be paid a refund of monies paid in the event
that the custodial parent is not located within six months from the time of payment.
3. For a peremptory writ of mandate mandating that GARCETTI immediately disburse
approximately $25 million which be is "holding" as "Child Support
Collections on Hold" and which he is not paying to the custodial parents to whom a
portion of such monies are due, the County of Los Angeles Welfare Department, to whom a
portion of such monies are due, and to the payors of such funds who, by law, must be paid
a refund of monies paid in the event that the custodial parent is not located within six
months from the time of payment.
4. For reasonable attorneys' fees incurred herein under the "Substantia1 Benefit
Doctrine", the "private Attorney General Doctrine", or the "Common
Fund Doctrine".
5. For costs of suit incurred herein; and,
6. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: February 19, 1999
LAW OFFICES OF
RICHARD I. FINE & ASSOCIATES
A professional corporation
By: [signed]
RICHARD I. FINE
Attorneys for plaintiff
Copyright © Design Systems, Inc. All rights
reserved.
Last update 03/18/99