Laurel Dickranian v. City of Los Angeles et al

Filing 15

ORDER by Judge Otis D Wright, II: granting #8 Defendant City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles City Ethics Commission. Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (lc). Modified on 9/12/2012 (lc).

Download PDF
1 O 2 JS-6 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 LAUREL DICKRANIAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________) I. CASE NO. CV 12-5145-ODW (SSx) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [8] INTRODUCTION 19 Laurel Dickranian (“Plaintiff”) challenges the constitutionality of certain sections 20 of the Los Angeles City Charter and Los Angeles Municipal Code (“LAMC”). 21 Specifically, Plaintiff challenges these provisions of the City of Los Angeles’ independent- 22 expenditure disclosure laws: (1) LAMC section 49.7.11(C) (“the literature filing 23 requirements”); (2) LAMC sections 49.7.26(A) and (B) (“the reporting requirements”); and 24 (3) Charter section 470(l) and LAMC section 49.7.28 (“the disclaimer requirements”). 25 (Opp’n at 2.) 26 Defendants explain that the “disclosure and disclaimer requirements contained in 27 these laws compel a committee (which can be an individual under state law) making 28 independent expenditures to file a disclosure report, along with an exact copy of the 1 communication with the City Ethics Commission.” (Mot at 3–4 (“The requirements also 2 mandate the campaign communication to include ‘paid for by’ identification information 3 and whether the communication was authorized by the candidate.”)). 4 Defendants now move to dismiss this action, arguing the “campaign disclosure laws 5 that Plaintiff seeks to evade have been repeatedly upheld as constitutional, surviving and 6 flourishing even in the most recent review by the United States Supreme Court.” (Mot. at 7 2 (“The disclosure rules serve important public interests in educating the electorate.”).) 8 The September 24, 2012 hearing date on this motion is hereby VACATED and, for the 9 reasons discussed below, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. 10 II. FACTS 1 11 In February 2009, Ms. Dickranian wrote and distributed [more than 17,000] 12 one-page letter[s] in support of then-candidate for City Attorney, Michael Amerian. 13 (Complaint ¶ 18.) She paid for the printing, reproduction, and mailing entirely from her 14 own funds, acting entirely independently of any candidate or committee. (See id. 15 ¶¶ 19–20.) Moreover, she only distributed it to a distinct ethnic religious group. (See id. 16 ¶ 18.) 17 Soon after, the Ethics Commission opened an investigation into the matter. (See id. 18 ¶ 20.) Next, when Ms. Dickranian refused a stipulated settlement, including an admission 19 of liability and a fine of $13,707.55, the Ethics Commission concluded its investigation and 20 formally accused Ms. Dickranian of three counts of violating various sections of the 21 Charter and the LAMC. (Id. ¶¶ 22–23 & Ex. A.) Over a year later, without explanation, 22 the Ethics Commission dismissed the charges with prejudice. (See id. ¶¶ 25–27.) 23 “Ms. Dickranian thus [claims she] suffered actual injury from the unconstitutional 24 prosecution, and her civil rights continue to be under threat of unconstitutional enforcement 25 26 1 These facts are culled from Plaintiff’s Opposition to this Motion and reflect Plaintiff’s Complaint. 27 28 2 1 actions initiated by the City Ethics Commission. Accordingly, the Complaint alleges 2 infringement and threatened infringement of Ms. Dickranian’s First and Fourteenth 3 Amendment rights and seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (Opp’n at 2.) 4 III. DISCUSSION 5 Rather than discuss all arguments advanced in the parties’ papers, the Court agrees 6 with Defendants that “the Complaint should be dismissed summarily.” (Reply at 2.) As 7 aptly summarized by the Ninth Circuit, and relayed by Defendants: 8 Providing information to the electorate is vital to the efficient functioning of 9 the marketplace of ideas, and thus to advancing the democratic objectives 10 underlying the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court explained in Buckley 11 [v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)] ‘in a republic where the people are sovereign, 12 the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for 13 office is essential.’ Buckley, 424 U.S. at 14–15; see also McConnell, 540 U.S. 14 at 197 (recognizing the ‘First Amendment interests of individual citizens 15 seeking to make informed choices in the political marketplace’ (quoting 16 McConnell v. FEC, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176, 237 (D.D.C. 2003)). Thus, by 17 revealing information about the contributors to . . . public discourse and 18 debate, disclosure laws help ensure that voters have the facts they need to 19 evaluate the various messages competing for their attention.” 20 (Reply at 2–3 (quoting Human Life of Wash, Inc. v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990, 1005, 1013 21 (9th Cir. 2010)); see also Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) 22 (applying exacting scrutiny and upholding disclosure and disclaimer requirements for 23 electioneering communications); Alaska Right to Life Comm. v. Miles, 441 F.3d 773, 793 24 (9th Cir. 2006) (upholding electioneering reporting requirements and concluding 25 “[i]ndividual citizens seeking to make informed choices in the political marketplace . . . 26 need to know what entity is funding a communication”). 27 /// 28 3 1 /// 2 3 4 Accordingly, and for all those reasons discussed in Defendants’ moving and reply papers, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE. 5 6 SO ORDERED 7 September 12, 2012 8 _________________________ 9 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?