Michiko Shiota Gingery, et al v. City of Glendale et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-13399832 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiffs MICHIKO SHIOTA GINGERY, GAHT-US Corporation, Koichi Mera.(Attorney Neil M Soltman added to party GAHT-US Corporation(pty:pla), Attorney Neil M Soltman added to party MICHIKO SHIOTA GINGERY(pty:pla), Attorney Neil M Soltman added to party Koichi Mera(pty:pla))(Soltman, Neil)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

MAYER BROWN LLP
NEIL M. SOLTMAN (SBN 67617)
[e-mail]
MATTHEW H. MARMOLEJO (SBN 242964)
[e-mail]
RUTH ZADIKANY (SBN 260288)
[e-mail]
REBECCA B. JOHNS (SBN 293989)
[e-mail]
350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MICHIKO SHIOTA GINGERY, KOICHI MERA, and
GAHT-US CORPORATION

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15
16
17

MICHIKO SHIOTA GINGERY, an
individual, KOICHI MERA, an
individual, GAHT-US Corporation, a
California non-profit corporation,
Plaintiffs,

18
19
20
21

Case No. 2:14-cv-1291
COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

v.
CITY OF GLENDALE, a municipal
corporation, SCOTT OCHOA, in his
capacity as Glendale City Manager,
Defendants.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
708340890

1
2

Plaintiffs Michiko Shiota Gingery, Koichi Mera and GAHT-US Corporation
(“GAHT”), allege as follows:
JURISDICTION

3
4

1.

This action arises under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the foreign

5

affairs powers of the United States, U.S. Const. art. II, sec. 1, cl. 1; sec. 2, cl. 1;

6

sec. 2, cl. 2; and sec. 3; and the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Constitution, art. VI, cl. 2.

7

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

8

1343(a)(3), and the power to grant declaratory and injunctive relief under 28

9

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction under 28

10

U.S.C. § 1367 over all claims that are so related to claims in the action within

11

original jurisdiction such that they form part of the same case or controversy.

12

2.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)

13

because the conduct complained of occurred, is occurring, and/or will continue to

14

occur in Glendale, California, within this judicial district. Defendant City of

15

Glendale (“Glendale”) maintains its offices in Glendale, California. Defendant

16

Scott Ochoa (“Ochoa”), who is sued in his official capacity as the City Manager of

17

Glendale, maintains his offices in Glendale, California.
NATURE OF THE ACTION

18
19

3.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief relating to the

20

presence of a monument authorized by Glendale and Ochoa and condemning the

21

nation of Japan for its involvement with and treatment of what have come to be

22

known as “comfort women.” The monument is located on public land in a publicly

23

owned park in Glendale known as Central Park, located at 201 South Colorado St.,

24

Glendale, CA 91205 (the “Public Monument”). Plaintiffs seeks this relief on the

25

grounds that the Public Monument exceeds the power of Glendale, infringes upon

26

the federal government’s power to exclusively conduct the foreign affairs of the

27

United States, and violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

28

1
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
708340890

1

4.

The Public Monument threatens to negatively affect U.S. foreign

2

relations with Japan, one of this nation’s most important allies, and is inconsistent

3

with the foreign policy of the United States. That policy is to encourage the

4

relevant foreign nations with direct involvement in the historic events involving

5

comfort women, including the governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea

6

(“South Korea”), to resolve the debate relating to comfort women between or

7

among themselves without the involvement of the United States. The proper

8

historical characterization of the events in issue and the precise role of national

9

governments in those acts have been the subject of discussions and negotiations

10

between the governments of Japan and South Korea for decades, and remain an

11

active topic of political debate.

12
13

5.

The emplacement of the Public Monument also violates Glendale’s

Municipal Code.
PARTIES

14
15

6.

Plaintiff Michiko Shiota Gingery (“Gingery”) is a long-time resident

16

of Glendale.

Gingery lives in the vicinity of Central Park and the Public

17

Monument. Gingery is a founding member of Glendale’s Sister City Committee, a

18

committee created to develop and administer Glendale’s Sister City Program. In

19

this capacity, Gingery made significant contributions to Glendale’s establishment

20

of a Sister City relationship with the City of Higashiosaka (at the time called

21

Hiraoka), Japan, Glendale’s first Sister City. Gingery was born in Japan, and is

22

now a naturalized U.S. citizen. As a Glendale resident of Japanese heritage,

23

Gingery believes the Public Monument presents an unfairly one-sided portrayal of

24

the historical and political debate surrounding comfort women and presents the

25

potential to disrupt the United States’ strategic alliances with its closest East Asian

26

allies, Japan and South Korea. She also believes the emplacement of the Public

27

Monument represents a significant obstacle in maintaining friendly relations

28

among Glendale’s sister-cities, the primary objective of the Sister City Program.
2
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
708340890

1

Gingery suffers feelings of exclusion, discomfort, and anger because of the

2

position espoused by her city of residence through its display and endorsement of

3

the Public Monument. Gingery would like to use Glendale’s Central Park and the

4

Adult Recreation Center located within Central Park. But she now avoids doing so

5

because she is offended by the Public Monument’s pointed expression of

6

disapproval of Japan and the Japanese people. In addition, the presence of the

7

Public Monument diminishes Gingery’s enjoyment of the Central Park and its

8

Adult Recreation Center.

9

7.

Plaintiff GAHT-US Corporation (“GAHT-US”) is a non-profit public

10

benefit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California. The

11

purpose of GAHT-US is to provide accurate and fact-based educational resources

12

to the public in the U.S., including within California and Glendale, concerning the

13

history of World War II and related events, with an emphasis on Japan’s role.

14

GAHT-US has undertaken this goal in an effort to enhance a mutual historical and

15

cultural understanding between and among the Japanese and American people.

16

Given its mission, GAHT-US believes that the Public Monument advances an

17

unfairly biased portrayal of the Japanese government’s purported involvement with

18

comfort women during the Second World War. Individual members of GAHT-US

19

reside in Glendale and nearby cities. GAHT-US’s members suffer feelings of

20

exclusion, discomfort, and anger by the continued presence of the Public

21

Monument, and the controversial and disputed stance on the debate surrounding

22

comfort women that it perpetuates. Although GAHT-US members would like to

23

use Glendale’s Central Park and its Adult Recreation Center, they no longer intend

24

to do so as a result of their distress due to the Public Monument. In addition, the

25

presence of the Public Monument diminishes GAHT-US members’ enjoyment of

26

the Central Park and its Adult Recreation Center.

27
28

8.

Plaintiff Koichi Mera (“Mera”) is a Japanese-American resident of the

City of Los Angeles and the President of GAHT-US. Mera disagrees with and is
3
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
708340890

1

offended by the position espoused by Glendale through the Public Monument and

2

its pointed condemnation of the Japanese people and government. Although Mera

3

would like to use Glendale’s Central Park and its Adult Recreation Center, as a

4

result of his alienation due to the Public Monument, he avoids doing so. In

5

addition, the presence of the Public Monument diminishes Mera’s enjoyment of

6

the Central Park and its Adult Recreation Center.

7

9.

Defendant Glendale is a political subdivision of the State of California

8

operating under a charter authorized by the State of California that empowers it to

9

pass lawful ordinances and to govern and administer municipal activities within

10

Glendale’s city limits, with authority to be sued in its own name. Glendale’s

11

governing authority consists of city council, composed of five city council

12

members (the “City Council”), one of whom also serves as the mayor. The City

13

Council makes policy decisions for Glendale, including decisions regarding the use

14

of public lands.

15

10.

At all relevant times hereto, defendant Ochoa has been the duly

16

appointed City Manager of Glendale with supervisorial responsibility over the day-

17

to-day administration of Glendale’s various departments and staff, including but

18

not limited to Glendale’s Department of Community Services and Parks,

19

Department of Public Works, Department of Community Development, and

20

Department of Management Services; these departments in one or another manner

21

are involved in the management and operation of Central Park and/or the Public

22

Monument. Ochoa effectively acts as, and is publicly held out to operate as,

23

Glendale’s Chief Executive Officer. At all relevant times with respect to the

24

Public Monument, Ochoa acted under color of state law and with the power and

25

authority granted to him by the State of California and Glendale to deprive

26

Plaintiffs of their federal constitutional rights, for which Plaintiffs seek injunctive

27

and declaratory relief.

28

4
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
708340890

1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2

Glendale’s Public Monument

3

11.

At a Special Meeting on July 9, 2013, the City Council approved the

4

installation of the Public Monument, described as “a Korean Sister City ‘Comfort

5

Woman’ Peace Monument,” on a substantial portion of public land immediately

6

adjacent to the Adult Recreation Center Plaza in Central Park.

7

Monument was unveiled 21 days later, on July 30, 2013. The Public Monument is

8

a 1,100-pound bronze statue of a young girl in Korean dress sitting next to an

9

empty chair with a bird perched on her shoulder. Integral to and alongside the

10

statue is a permanent bronze plaque that reads:

11

I was a sex slave of Japanese military

12

The Public

 Torn hair symbolizes the girl being snatched from her
home by the Imperial Japanese Army.

13

 Tight fists represent the girl’s firm resolve for a

14

deliverance of justice.

15

 Bare and unsettled feet represent having been abandoned

16

by the cold and unsympathetic world.

17

 Bird on the girl’s shoulder symbolizes a bond between us

18

and the deceased victims.

19

 Empty chair symbolizes survivors who are dying of old

20

age without having yet witnessed justice.

21

 Shadow of the girl is that of an old grandma, symbolizing

22

passage of time spent in silence.

23

 Butterfly in shadow represents hope that victims may

24

resurrect one day to receive their apology.

25
26

Peace Monument

27

In memory of more than 200,000 Asian and Dutch

28

women who were removed from their homes in Korea,
5
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
708340890

1

China, Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand,

2

Vietnam, Malaysia, East Timor and Indonesia, to be

3

coerced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Armed

4

Forces of Japan between 1932 and 1945.

5
6

And in celebration of proclamation of “Comfort Women

7

Day” by the City of Glendale on July 30, 2012, and of

8

passing of House Resolution 121 by the United States

9

Congress on July 30, 2007, urging the Japanese

10

Government to accept historical responsibility for these

11

crimes.

12
13

It is our sincere hope that these unconscionable violations

14

of human rights shall never recur.

15

July 30, 2013.

16
17

12.

No other monuments are present in this area of Central Park and, upon

18

information and belief, no other permanent markers may be placed there without

19

approval of the City Council.

20

13.

Glendale exercises exclusive custody and control of Central Park and

21

the Public Monument, and upon information and belief, provides all necessary

22

maintenance services for the Public Monument.

23
24

The Historical Background Of The Debate Concerning Comfort Women
14.

During World War II and the decade leading up to it, an unknown

25

number of women from Japan, Korea, China, and a number of nations in Southeast

26

Asia, were recruited, employed, and/or otherwise acted as sexual partners for

27

troops of the Japanese Empire in various parts of the Pacific Theater of war. These

28

6
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
708340890

1

women are often referred to as comfort women, a loose translation of the Japanese

2

word for prostitute.

3

15.

Beginning in the 1980s, a dispute arose between South Korea and the

4

government of Japan concerning the hardships experienced by Korean comfort

5

women and whether the Japanese government forcefully recruited comfort women.

6

16.

Officials of the Japanese government assert that the Japanese military

7

and Japanese Imperial government were not responsible for or directly involved in

8

the recruitment of comfort women, and that private firms and individuals

9

undertook the recruitment.

10

17.

Other governments, including that of South Korea, claim that comfort

11

women were recruited by and/or forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial

12

Japanese government and/or officials of the Japanese military.

13

18.

The debate concerning historic responsibility for the comfort women

14

camps has been a significant and ongoing source of tension in recent decades

15

between Japan and South Korea, both of which are critical American allies.

16

Disagreements concerning responsibility for comfort women are a major

17

impediment to improved present-day relations between Japan and South Korea,

18

which are less than cordial.
Efforts By Japan and South Korea To Address The Dispute

19
20

19.

After some years of controversy regarding the Japanese Imperial

21

Government’s alleged involvement with comfort women, in 1995 Japan

22

established the Asian Women’s Fund to distribute compensation to former comfort

23

women in South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and Indonesia,

24

and to provide them with letters of apology from the Prime Minister of Japan.

25

20.

Nonetheless, several governments, including the government of South

26

Korea, have continued to demand that Japan take additional steps to redress

27

grievances relating to comfort women.

28

7
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
708340890

1

21.

The Japanese government asserts that all World War II-related claims

2

against Japan, including those related to comfort women, were resolved by the

3

Treaty of Peace signed in San Francisco by Japan, the United States, and 47 other

4

allied nations in 1951 (the “Treaty of San Francisco”), the Treaty on Basic

5

Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea dated June 22, 1965, and/or

6

the Agreement on the Settlement of Problems Concerning Property and Claims and

7

on Economic Co-operation between Japan and the Republic of Korea also dated

8

June 22, 1965 (the “Settlement Agreement”).

9

22.

Article 4(a) of the Treaty of San Francisco provides that claims of

10

Korean and Chinese nationals relating to Japan’s wartime conduct, including issues

11

related to comfort women, are to be addressed through government-to-government

12

negotiations between Japan and each of those countries.

13

23.

Article 2(1) of the Settlement Agreement provides that the “problem

14

concerning property, rights and interests of the two Contracting Parties [i.e., Japan

15

and South Korea] and their nationals (including juridical persons) and concerning

16

claims between the Contracting Parties and their nationals . . . is settled completely

17

and finally.”

18

24.

In December 2011, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and

19

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak held talks in Kyoto, Japan in an effort to

20

improve bilateral relations between the two neighboring countries.

21

discussions terminated when President Lee pressed Prime Minister Noda to take

22

additional responsibility for Korean comfort women. Plaintiffs are informed and

23

believe that no further discussions between Japan and South Korea have since

24

taken place.
Glendale’s Installation Of The Public Monument

25
26

The

25.

Glendale has established a Glendale Sister Cities program to initiate

27

ongoing communication and “promote[] interest and good will” between and

28

among Glendale and its Sister Cities. As of March 2009, Glendale had six Sister
8
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
708340890

1

City partnerships: Higashiosaka, Japan; Hiroshima, Japan; Tlaquepaque, Mexico;

2

Rosarito, Mexico; Ghapan, Armenia; and Goseong City, the Republic of Korea.

3

26.

On September 6, 2011, the City Council instructed Glendale’s

4

Community Services and Parks staff to explore the possibility of dedicating a

5

portion of public land within Glendale for acceptance and installation of

6

memorials, monuments, and/or artifacts representative of Glendale’s sister city

7

partners.

8
9
10
11

27.

On March 26, 2013, the City Council voted to dedicate a plot of

public land within Central Park and adjacent to the Adult Recreation Center Plaza
for the purpose of sister city-related monuments and memorials.
28.

In the spring and summer of 2013, a proposal was made to place a

12

statue in Central Park dedicated to comfort women. During that period, the City

13

Council received hundreds of letters and emails in opposition to the installation of

14

the monument, almost entirely from residents and interested persons of Japanese

15

ancestry.

16

29.

At a July 9, 2013 Special Meeting the City Council considered and

17

approved a motion to install the Public Monument, described as a “Korean Sister

18

City ‘Comfort Women’ Peace Monument,” on public land within Central Park.

19

The report recommending approval of the installation of the Public Monument,

20

submitted to the City Council in conjunction with the motion, included a schematic

21

diagram depicting the proposed statue and its location.

22

motion to approve installation of the Public Monument in the Special Meeting

23

agenda was submitted to and approved by Ochoa.

24

30.

The inclusion of the

The schematic diagram of the proposed statue did not include any

25

mention of, or reference to, the text of the plaque that currently is part of the Public

26

Monument. During the Special Meeting, City Council Member Ara Najarian

27

asked Glendale Community Relations Coordinator Dan Bell whether the statue

28

would be accompanied by a plaque and, if so, its inscription. Mr. Bell advised the
9
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
708340890

1

City Council that the plaque would say that it was “commemorating and in honor

2

of the comfort women.” Mr. Bell made no mention of the text of the plaque that

3

ultimately was installed as part of the Public Monument.

4

31.

During the Special Meeting, numerous individuals, including

5

Japanese-Americans, publicly opposed and condemned the proposed installation of

6

the statue, arguing that the comfort women issue is a matter of current diplomatic

7

communications between South Korea and Japan, and the disputed view advanced

8

by the South Korean government on comfort women.

9

32.

Notwithstanding the numerous objections voiced at the Special

10

Meeting, the City Council approved the installation of the “Korean Sister City

11

‘Comfort Women’ Peace Monument” “as shown and described in the Report to

12

Council dated July 9, 2013” by a vote of 4 to 1. Glendale Mayor Dave Weaver,

13

who voted against installation of the Public Monument, later explained in a letter

14

to Yoshikazu Noda, Mayor of Higashiosaka, Japan (a Glendale sister city) that the

15

dispute over comfort women “is an international one between Japan and South

16

Korea and the City of Glendale should not be involved on either side.”

17

33.

Three weeks after the City Council’s approval, on July 30, 2013, the

18

1,100 pound bronze Public Monument was unveiled in Central Park. As described

19

above, the statue was accompanied by a plaque accusing the Japanese government

20

of “coerc[ing]” more than 200,000 women “into sexual slavery,” and “urging the

21

Japanese Government to accept historical responsibility for these crimes,” which it

22

labels an “unconscionable violations of human rights.” The City Council never

23

voted to approve the language included on the plaque.

24

34.

Following the Public Monument’s installation, at the July 30, 2013

25

Meeting of the City Council, Glendale City Council Member Laura Friedman

26

commented: “We really put the city of Glendale on the international map today by

27

doing this.”

28

10
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
708340890

1

35.

The installation of the Public Monument prompted opponents of the

2

Public Monument to commence a petition to compel its removal. The petition,

3

posted on President Barack Obama’s website “We The People” in late 2013,

4

quickly received more than 108,000 signatures.
The Japanese Government’s Reaction To The Public Monument

5
6
7
8

36.

Glendale’s decision to install the Public Monument has elicited

numerous unfavorable reactions from the Japanese government.
37.

On July 24, 2013, Kuni Sato, the press secretary of the Japanese

9

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, expressed Japan’s official displeasure, remarking that

10

installation of the Public Monument “does not coincide with our understanding” of

11

the comfort women dispute.

12

38.

On July 25, 2013, Yoshikazu Noda, the Mayor of Glendale’s sister

13

city, Higashiosaka, Japan, advised the City Council that the installation of the

14

Public Monument was “an extremely deplorable situation and the people of

15

Higashiosaka are hurt at a decision made by [Glendale] city to install a comfort

16

woman monument.”

17

39.

On July 31, 2013, Kenichiro Sasae, Japanese Ambassador to the

18

United States, declared that Glendale’s action is “irreconcilable” with the position

19

of the Government of Japan and is “highly regrettable.”

20

40.

On July 31, 2013, Mr. Yoshihide Suga, Japan’s Chief Cabinet

21

Secretary, described Glendale’s decision to install the Public Monument as

22

“extremely regrettable.”

23

[Japanese] government’s view that the issue of the comfort women should not be

24

part of any political or diplomatic agenda.”

25
26
27
28

41.

He added that Glendale’s action “conflicts with the

On August 13, 2013, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stated that

he was “extremely dissatisfied” with the installation of the Public Monument.
42.

On January 16, 2014, after being denied a request to meet with

Glendale’s Mayor and City Council, an association of 321 local Japanese
11
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
708340890

1

government legislators submitted an official letter to Glendale, protesting the

2

Public Monument’s installation “in the strongest terms” and requesting “that the

3

statue be removed immediately.” The letter advised Glendale that “the distorted

4

view of history that the statue represents . . . will surely jeopardize world peace and

5

the possibility of a bright future for our children.”

6

The Executive Branch’s Foreign Policy Position On Comfort Women

7

43.

The Executive Branch of the United States, which has primary

8

authority over the direction and conduct of U.S. foreign affairs, consistently has

9

sought to avoid having the United States become embroiled in the contentious

10

historical debate concerning comfort women between its two most important East

11

Asian allies.

12

44.

For example, on May 8, 2001, the United States filed a Statement of

13

Interest in connection with a lawsuit brought by 15 former comfort women against

14

Japan entitled Joo v. Japan, United States District Court for the District of

15

Columbia, Case No. 1:00-cv-02233-HHK. That Statement of Interest warned that

16

addressing the comfort women issue in the United States could disrupt Japan’s

17

“delicate” relations with China and Korea, thereby creating “serious implications

18

for stability in the region.”

19

45.

Based upon the Statement of Interest, the United States Court of

20

Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the Joo case as presenting

21

nonjusticiable political questions, holding that “choosing between the interests of

22

two foreign states . . . would adversely affect the foreign relations of the United

23

States.”

24

46.

The United States continues to encourage resolution of the comfort

25

women issue between Japan and its neighbors through government-to-government

26

negotiations. During a January 7, 2013 press briefing, White House Spokesperson

27

Victoria Nuland reported that the Administration “continue[s] to hope that the

28

countries in the region can work together to resolve their concerns over historical
12
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
708340890

1

issues in an amicable way and through dialogue. As you know, we have no closer

2

ally than Japan. We want to see the new Japanese Government, the new South

3

Korean Government, all of the countries in Northeast Asia working together and

4

solving any outstanding issues, whether they are territorial, whether they’re

5

historic, through dialogue.”

6

47.

During a trip to Seoul, South Korea in February 2014, U.S. Secretary

7

of State John Kerry said: “It is up to Japan and [South Korea] to put history behind

8

them and move the relationship forward. And it is critical at the same time that we

9

maintain robust trilateral cooperation.” “We urge our friends in Japan and South

10

Korea, we urge both of them to work with us together to find a way forward to

11

help resolve the deeply felt historic differences that still have meaning

12

today . . . .We will continue to encourage both allies to find mutually acceptable

13

approaches to legacy issues from the past.”

14

48.

In February 2014, Daniel Russel, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State

15

for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, commented that the U.S.’s position on the

16

comfort women issue is to continue efforts to help manage “sensitive historical

17

legacy problems in a way that contributes to healing and forgiveness in []

18

conversations in Japan and elsewhere in the region.”
The Public Monument Threatens Irreparable Injury to Plaintiffs

19
20
21
22

49.

Despite vocal domestic and international public protest, Glendale

persisted in installing the Public Monument, forcing Plaintiffs to bring this action.
50.

Allowing the Public Monument to remain in place in Glendale’s

23

Central Park threatens irreparable injury to Gingery, Mera, GAHT-US, and its

24

members.

25

Glendale’s Sister City Program, the presence of the Public Monument within the

26

designated Sister City area of Glendale’s Central Park has turned visiting Central

27

Park into a highly offensive endeavor, effectively denying Gingery full enjoyment

28

of the Park’s benefits.

As a longtime resident of Glendale with active involvement in

13
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
708340890

1

51.

The presence of the Public Monument has had a similar impact on

2

GAHT-US’s members, including Mera, who avoid using and benefitting from

3

Glendale’s Central Park.

4
5
6
7

52.

Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to address the foregoing

injuries.
53.

If the Public Monument is removed, Plaintiffs will again make use of

Glendale’s Central Park and its Adult Recreation Center.

8

54.

An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs

9

and Defendants.

10

55.

Plaintiffs contend that installation of the Public Monument

11

unconstitutionally intrudes on the Executive Branch’s authority to conduct

12

American foreign policy, and that Glendale’s installation of the Public Monument

13

violates Glendale’s Municipal Code.

14
15
16

56.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants disagree with

Plaintiffs’ contentions as set forth in the prior paragraph.
57.

A justiciable controversy therefore exists between Plaintiffs and

17

Defendants and a judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in

18

order to determine the legality of Glendale’s installation of the Public Monument.

19

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20

(Unconstitutional Interference With Foreign Affairs Power)

21
22
23

58.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the allegations of Paragraph 1

through 57 herein.
59.

The Public Monument interferes with the Executive Branch’s primary

24

authority to conduct foreign relations by disrupting federal foreign policy as to the

25

resolution of the historical debate concerning comfort women.

26

Monument also violates the Supremacy Clause.

27
28

60.

The Public

The Executive Branch’s authority in the field of foreign affairs is

violated by state or local actions that have more than an incidental or indirect effect
14
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
708340890

1

on, or that have the potential for disruption or embarrassment of, United States

2

foreign policy.

3

61.

Glendale’s installation of the Public Monument has a direct impact on

4

U.S. foreign policy that is neither incidental nor indirect. By installing the Public

5

Monument, Glendale has taken a position in the contentious and politically-

6

sensitive international debate concerning the proper historical treatment of the

7

former comfort women. More specifically, given the inflammatory language used

8

in the plaque that is prominently featured alongside the statue, Glendale has taken

9

a position at odds with the expressed position of the Japanese government.

10

62.

The Public Monument is inconsistent with the dual foreign policy

11

objectives promulgated by the Executive Branch on this controversial issue: (1)

12

avoid taking sides in this sensitive historical and political debate between the

13

United States’ two most important East Asian allies; and (2) encouraging a

14

resolution to the current diplomatic impasse between the two countries through

15

further government-to-government negotiations.

16

63.

As the reactions from the highest echelons of the Japanese

17

government make clear, Glendale’s actions have great potential for disrupting the

18

delicate diplomatic line struck by the Executive Branch on this contentious issue.

19

The Public Monument thus threatens to undermine the U.S. government’s foreign

20

relations with a critical Asian ally and, more generally, to destabilize already

21

strained diplomatic relations in this important region of the world.

22
23
24

64.

Glendale’s action also takes a position on a matter of foreign policy

with no claim to be addressing a traditional state responsibility.
65.

The actions of Glendale and the City Council in approving and

25

installing the Public Monument are beyond its authority, in violation of the U.S.

26

Constitution’s foreign affairs power and the Supremacy Clause, and the Public

27

Monument therefore must be removed.

28

15
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
708340890

1

66.

The actions of defendant Ochoa in approving and submitting the

2

proposal to install the Public Monument on public land, and in including a motion

3

to approve the installation in the Special Meeting Agenda, are beyond his authority

4

and unconstitutional, and the Public Monument therefore must be removed.

5

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

6

(Violation of the Glendale Municipal Code)

7
8
9

67.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the allegations in Paragraph 1

through 66 herein.
68.

Glendale Municipal Code Section 2.04.140 provides: “In all matters

10

and things not otherwise provided for in this chapter, the proceedings of the

11

council shall be governed under Robert’s Rules of Order, revised copy, 1952

12

edition.” Pursuant to Robert’s Rules of Order, to introduce a new piece of business

13

or propose a decision or action, a motion must be made by a group member. A

14

second motion must then also be made. And after limited discussion, the group

15

then votes on the motion. A majority vote is required for the motion to pass.

16

69.

The Public Monument was not properly approved by the City Council

17

pursuant to Glendale Municipal Code Section 2.04.140. An integral part of the

18

Public Monument—the plaque that specifically attributes responsibility for, inter

19

alia, “snatching [women] from their homes” and “coerc[ing them] into sexual

20

slavery” to Japan—was neither proposed to the City Council nor made the subject

21

of a motion to the City Council, and was not approved by it, as required. In fact,

22

the proposed language presented to the Council never mentioned Japan at all, and

23

the City Council was specifically advised that the inscription on the plaque would

24

be different than the inscription ultimately used.

25

70.

As a result, the installation of the monument violated the Glendale

26

Municipal Code.

27
28

16
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
708340890

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1
2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

3

1.

4
5

That the Court declare Glendale’s installation of the Public Monument

unconstitutional and null and void;
2.

That the Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin and compel

6

defendants, and each of them, to remove the Public Monument from public

7

property in Glendale, including but not limited to, any area in or adjacent to

8

Central Park;

9
10
11
12
13

3.

That the Court award Plaintiffs their costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
4.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and

proper.
Dated: February 20, 2014

14
15
16

MAYER BROWN LLP
NEIL M. SOLTMAN
MATTHEW H. MARMOLEJO
RUTH ZADIKANY
REBECCA B. JOHNS

17

By:

s/ Neil M. Soltman
Neil M. Soltman
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MICHIKO SHIOTA GINGERY, KOICHI
MERA, and GAHT-US CORPORATION

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

17
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
708340890