Securus Technologies, LLC, v. California Dept of Technology, CA, Writ of Mandate, Inmate Phone Calls, 2021
Download original document:
Document text
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL "'
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil qawi.ce of Process Cover Sheet
~
SF
OAK
LA
SD
FR
.
Service of Process Disclaimer:
To All Persons Attempting Service of .Process Upon The ·office Of The Attorney General:
Please be advised that staff assigned to receive documents delivered to the Attorney General's Office are not.authorized to
accept such documents as properly served, Fu~her, staff are not author/zed to receive documents on behalf of a,w
Individual. In receiving documents delivered by process servers and/or other members of the public, office personnel do not
thereby waive any right of the State of California, the Attorney General's Office, any other entity of the Stale of California, or any
individual to object lo the validity of the servlos.
·
Please com feta this form when deliverin documents to the Attorne General's Office:
Case Name: SECURUS V CA DEPT
Court No,:. 34202180003594
Count :
Sacramento
Document(s)
□ Summons and Complaint/Cross
□ Notice of Consumer or Employee
served:
Complaint/Amended Complaint
and Objection and ch.eek 1or $15.00
□ Notice to Attorney General's Office
lil Writ of Mandate and Complaint for
pursuant to Section
Declarat9ry Relief
□ Petition For Relief Fr_o_m...,L-a-,-te---,C~la-,l_m_ D Other (please list):
FIiing (Gov. Code, § 946.6)
□ Pltchess Motion
.□ Small Claims
□ Deposition Subpoena for Production
of Business Records
.
Document(s) For
(Specify State
A enc
-------
Attorney General
:
Process Server's
Name:
Name o'f
Company:
(business name,
address, and
numbe
Nancy Graddy
First Legal Support
1814 "I" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916 444-5111
Receptionist
Si nature: ·
Name of Service
Deputy, section,
and telephone
number:
NOTES:
The attached dooument(s) appear(s) to be the reaponsibllity of your seotlon; If they are not, please return them to the Service
Deputy named above, noting the section to which they are to be directed.
·
(Rev. 7/2014),
.'
I
II
I
II
IL
SUM-100
SUMMONS
FOR COURT USE ONLY
(SOLO PARA.USO DE LA CORTE)
(C/TACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(AVISO'AL DEMANDADO}:
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Respondents; GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation, Real Party In Interest.
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
FILED/ENDORSED
I
FEB 16 2021
I
By: _ _.,.-,?-L~Ra"!:m!"so,--_ __
. Deputy Clerk
NOTICl:I You have been -sued~ The- court may d_ecide against you without your belng heard unless you r-espond within 30 days,, Read the information
below~
·
You have _30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to fi!e·- ~ writt~n response_ .i;rt this oaurt and have.a copy
served on the platntiff. A_ letter o.r phone call will' not _protect y.ou. _Your written response must be ln proper legal fmm lf you want the: court to. hear your
case. There.may be: a court form that you can use for your response. You· can find tties.e _court forms and more lllfo11JJa:tlon at the Callfomla Courts
Onllne &e!f~Help Center (www.courtlnfo.ca.gov/saffhelp),, your courity law llbrary, or the- courthouse _nearest you, If you, c.annot pay the flllng f~e, ask
the Court clerk for a fee waiver farm. lf you.do not fife your response on time-, you may lose-the-case by default. and yoorwa.gea, money, and property
may be tak® without further\.Vamlng from the court.
There are other legal requfr~ments, You may-want-to call an attorney right away, If y.ou do not know an .attorney_, you may want-to call an attQmey
referral service,. If. you: cannot afford an.attorney_,_ you may be_ ellglble for Free legal servfce_s from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
these nonprofit.groups_ at the California Legal $ervk:es Web site (WWW.lawhefpcallfornfa,org), the CaUfornla Courta Onlin!'i SE!lf-Help center
(www.courtihfo.oa.gov!selfhelp), or by contactfhg your local court or county-bar assocTatkm.-NOTE: The court has a statutory lien far w~lved fees and
costs on any s~ttlernent or a:rbittatlon awarcLof $1-0;000 or more In a. clvll case. The court's lien must be paid before the court wll! dismiss the case.
JAVISOf Lo han demandado. SI .no responde de]Jtro de 30 dfas, la corte p-uede r:Iectdlr en sU contra sin escuchar sl,J .versl6'n Lea la fnformacf6n a
cantlnuac/6n,
17.ene·-30 DIA$· DE: CALENDAR/0 d~spues de que· le- entreguen esta citaci6n y papeles leyF1/es para presentar una resp~sta por esclito en esta
corte y haoer que se entregue una cop/a .al demanc:fante, Una carta o uns· l/amada telefDhlca no la protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene-que estar
en fqnriaJG legal correcto. sl--desea-qua pi'Ocesen su ca Sa-en_ /a .carte. Es: posJbfe: qµ_e haya un tormuJarfb que usted·p.ueda usarpara su respuesta.
Puede encontra_re~tos formu/arios de fEI carte y mas lnformacl6n en-el Centro de Ayuda_ de las Cortes de Calltomla (www,_su_corte.oa,gov), en Ja
blbliote.ca de· /eyes de-su com/ado .o en la corle que le-quede mi!s cerca. Sf no puecJe pagar fa cu.ota de presenJacfDn, p1'f:la al secretarfo de Ja corte
que le df!· un fonnularlO d"e exencl6rt Qe pago de cuotas, Sf-no present-€! su respuesta ~ tfempa; puede perder el oaso. porincumpllmlento y la corte le
padta-qt.dtar su sue/cto,. dihe.ro y bfe.nes. sin mas <!Jdvertencia.
Ha)( otro11 requisltos lerjales.: /Es recomendab/e que-Jlame a. un abogadD lnmedlatamenfe. SI no conOCe a:.-un abagad.o, puede Ila mar a un servklo de
remlsZ6n a abogad.Qs. Sl tm puede pa(JaF a un-abogada! es poslbl~· que cumpfa con lbs requi$ftos. pa~ -obtener servlc/os, legales-grat/Jitos de un
programa de servlclos legates sin fines tfe .Jucto~ Pue de encontr:ar estos,grupos sin. fines de luoro en el sitlo web de Calffomia- Legal Se,vfces,
(www.lawhelpoallforrtla;org), en el CfJnfro _de Ayuda de las- Cortes·.de Ca{lfomla; (¼Ww.sucmrte.ca;g_ov) o pohlr!Jndose .en cdntacto can/a- corte, o e/
cdleglo de abogado;;, locales. A VISO: Por ley, .la cort'e t/ene derecho a recfamar las cuotas y fos oostos exantos par imponer I.m gravam_en sobre
eualquier ~cuperaol6n de $101 01J0 6 m,i's c/e valor reciblda med/ante un aouenio o una concesi6n de arbitraje-en un. casa de derecho cfvii. 71ene que
o,agar-ef. gravamen de la corte antes de aue·fa coJte· pueda. desechar el caso.
The name and address of the- court is;
CASE NUMBER,
(El nombre y dfrecci6n de la oorte es);
fNamero
,,,c,so/C
34-2021-aooo3594
Superior Court of Californ)a • County of Sacramento
720 Ninth Street - Room 102, Sacramento CA 95814-1380
The name, address, and telepilone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, Is:
(El nombre, la direcci6n y elnumero d~ telefono def abogado de/ demandante, ode/ demandante que. no tiene abagado, es):
Timothy L. Pierce (SBN 1411701 Hector H. Espinosa (SBN 2Z2426)
:
K&L GATES LLP
10100 Sanla Monica Blvd .., Los Angeles, CA 90067 TelephonE>: (310) 552-5001
I. ROMO
Clerk, by
, Deputy
DATE:
(Fecha)
(Secretaria} - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Ad]unto)
EFB 1 6 2021
(For proafofseNice at/his summons, use Proa! of Sentlce of Summons (form POS-OfO).)
(Para prueba de entrega de asta citati6n use el formuteria Proof of Service of Sum.mans, (POS-010)).
ISEAlJ
· 00•
NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
.'.~-.
1.
Das an Individual defendant.
t!'l~" : ~ :
::h:~;::;.::::~der the fictitious name of (speclly):
under:
4.
0 GCP 416, 10 (corporation)
0 COP 416.20 (defunct corporation)
0 COP 416.40 (associatron or partnership)
D other (specify):
D COP 416.60 (minor)
0 COP 416,70 (oonservatee)
D COP 416 ..90 (authorized person)
D by personal delivery on (date):
Pa e1 of1
FonnAdopwd for Mandatory UseJudlelal Councll of"Canromla
SUM,100[Rav. Jul~-1, 2009]
SUMMONS
America_n LagRINet, rnc.
www.FormsW-Orliflow.com
Cada of Clvil Procedure §§-412.20, 465
-www.courtlm'o.ca.gov
CM-010
NITOONEY-□RPARTV
'MTHOUT ATTORNEY (N8me, Bta!e-.Bat-111.1mbar,.and-sddrAfi$J:
FOR COURT tlSJ:" P.Nl Y
TJmQthy L. Pierce (141170); HectorH Espinosa (222426)
10100 Santa Montca Blvd., 7th Fl,
Los An9eles CA ~0Q67
TELBPl10NB·t,IO,:
310-552,.5000
FAX: NO, (Opl(ona[);
31()-552,5001
FILED/ENDORSED
mo•N£~ co• /N,mw, Petitioner Saeurus Technologies, LLC
SUPERIOR Ct'JURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
STf(l!ET Aooa••"'
no Ninth street - Ream 11l2
MA1LIN(Ml:lOR!;SS:
crr. AfjOztP c,,r,e Sacramento CA 95814
By:
8RANGH NA.Mm
I
FEB 11 2021
CASE NAME:
I. Romo
r
Dapufy Clerk
S-eourus Te.cM0!09ies-1 U.C:vs,. Cal, Oept: of Tech,; Cal. Dept, o:fCor.recilona and Rehab.; & Do.es
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
D Limited
Complex. Case Designation
cAsaNUMeER:
D Counter
(Amount
Flled·with first appearance by d<!.llandant J\;J0:$1::
demanded is
(Cal. Rill•• o!Oourt,_ rnle. 3A02)
DEPT~
$26,000)
Jliims 1--!l be aw mustlJe aompleled (see Instruct/ans onpafle 2).
[K] Unllmlted
(/\mount
demanded
exceeds· $25;.00O)
-□
Jolnqer
94-2021-80003594
1. Cheak one box below for the oase type thatbesf describes this case;
AutoT~rt
contraet
Pl'Qvislonally Complex. CMI Lli1gatlon
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
(C•t. i'ltilt.•.of Court, rules MO!l-a.403)
D Anlitrust/J'rade n,gulatlon[oa;
D co,mtruotlon detect(tO)
D Maus tort (40)
D Secunlles tttlgatlon (;28)
D EnvlronmentaITToxlotort (30)
Auto(,22)
Uninsured motori'st(46)
Other PI/PD/WQ (Pon,onal lb]\ll'YIProporty
Oamage/WrongfUI Chtath) Tort
D
D
D
Asl)est<,s.(04)
Product llablllty (24)
Medical malpractlee(45)
Breach of contract/Warranty (06)
Rule 3,740 collecllons. (09)
Other colleotlons (Oil)
lnsurancuoveroge (18)
Olher·contracf (37)
Roal Property
D ltiaurance,oov.erage claims arlslng trorn the
E'mlnent domain/Inverse
above listed prcavtsronally el)mplex·case
condemnation
(14)
D OlherPI/PON\10 (23)
l~pos (41).
·
·
D Wrongful evli:tlo" (33)
Non•PIIPOIWO (Othor) Tort
Enforcement-of Judgment
D SUstne..:JpriJtJnlalr.bustness praollce(07)' D Oiheneat pmper\Y (26)
D Enlorcementol Jµdgmenl (20)
D C!vll dgbta (Pa)
\lnlaWM Detainer
MlscetlanQo.us 'CHtlt -Co_mplatnt
D Oefematlon (1a)
D Commercial (~t)
0 RIC0(;/.7)
D Fraud (t6)
D Resldenflal .(32)
D Other complaint (l,ol.spec///"'1"1JoveJ (42)
D lnleUeclual propel'!\' (1QJ
D Druw, (3&)
Ml$c:elfa11eQius:cM1 P-etltlor,
D Profesofonet negligence (26)
Judlolol Revl•w
D
Partnership and corporal• 9ovemance (21)
D .. Ofuernon•PIIPDM/D 1ort (35)
D Asset torf•lture (05!
OiJ
Other•petltllln (notspooifled.,,bova) (431
Employment
D. PeUtton re; arbitration award (tt)
O. WtongliJI temilnation (all)
D Writ 01 mandate (02)
D Qtheremploymenl (16)
D Other Judlnral review (;!I!)
2. Thiscas~ 0
1s I:::!] is not complex.uncterrule3.400 oftha Galifortila Rules of Court. If the case I• complex,markthe
factors ,equlrti19 exeeplional judicial managemenl:
·
a. D Large nurnberof separately represented partle•
d. D Large numbororwltnesses
b. D Extensive motion practice r.aislllg dlfflcult or novel e. D Coon:ilnattorr with relatad aatlon.rpendlng in one ormore
courts In other counties,. states, or countries, or ln a federal
looues that w111 be ttme,.oonsuming tlJ resolve
court
o. D Substanilar amount of documentary evidence
f; D
$ubstant!al post)udgmen1 jUdlclal supervision
3, Reine~ieuought (IJ/lsvlf ail that app/Y): a. []] monetary b. []J nonmonetary; declaratory or lnJuncttve relief o; 0 punitive
4. Number of causes of acl:!on (;peolfy): three
✓
5, This ease □ Is
I:::!] ls.not a claSJ! action suit
6, If there are any known related eases, iileandsarv<>·a rtolloeof related case. (You mayus;rom, C , · · J
Date: February 11, 2021
Hector H. Espinosa
D
e_ OR. PR!NT mo.ME
• Ptalnlifl' must file thfs cover sheet with the first paper filed in the acl:!on or proceedfng. (except small clal ~ . or cases flied
under\he PrJ:Jbate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Cod<>J. (Cal. Rules of Court, rut• 3.220.J F~llure to ftle may result
In sancl:!ons.
• File this cover sheetln addition to anycover sheet required by local court rule,
• If this easels complex under rule 3',400 et••~· of!M California Rules of court; you must serve a copy of lhls cover sheet on all
other parties to the acl:!on or proceeding,
• Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 ora ccmplexoose, this cover sheetwlll be used forstatlstlcal purposes only ..
,
Fnrm AdoptetlfQrMamla{aiy tlso
Judhilal Cou_ncl! ofCilHf/Jfnla
QM-010 IRe;v, Jul)' 1, 20011
P11011·1"otz
1
FILED/ENDORSED
K&L GATES LLP
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard
Seventh Floor
· Los Angeles, Cali:futnia 90067
Telephone: 310.552.5000
Facsimile: 310.552.5001
2
3
I
6
7
Deputy Clerk
Timothy L. Pierce,. Bar No. 141170
Hector H. Espinosa, Bar No. 222426
Attorneys for Petitioner Securus Technologies,
LLC
8
SUPERJOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
11
12
I
By: _ _....e..l.,.,,Rll,.,,,_m.,.0_ _ __
4
5
FEB 11 2021
Case No.
34-2021-80003594
Petitioner,
vs.
13
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TECHNOLOGY,
CALIFORNIA
14
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
15 REHABILITATION, and DOES 1 through 100,
• Inclusive,
16
Respondents,
17
GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION, a
Delaware
Corporation,
18
PETITION FOR (1) WRIT OF MANDATE,
(2) INJUNCTION, AND (3)
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Real Party In Interest.
19
20
21
Petitioner Securus Technologies, LLC ("Securus" or "Petitioner''), pursuant to California
22
Public Contract Code section 661 I and California Code of Civii Procedure section 1085, petitions the
23
Court fot
24
Department of Technology, respondent California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and
25
Does I through f~0, together with Real Party In Interest Global Tel*Link Corporation, herein as
26
a writ of mandate, an inJtinction and a declaratory judgment against respondent California
follows:
27
28
PETITION FOR (1) WRIT OF MANDATE, (;!..)' INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
I
2
OVERVIEW
I.
This lawsuit concerns harm to the taxpayers of California as a result of the State
3
failing to abide by applicable public bidding laws, violating equitable principles of fairness and
4
disregarding its obligations to the State's taxpayers.
5
6
2.
As such, Petitioner seeks to enjoin violations of California public contracting laws in
7
connection with the California Department of Technology ("CDT") award and execution of a
8
contract ("Contract") with Global Tel*Link Corporation ("GTL") pursuant to a Request for Proposal
9
("RFP") to provide communication technology (including incarcerated individual voice calling,
10
incarcerated individual video calling and incarcerated individual tablets) for the California
11
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR").
12
13
3.
The RFP contained a not-to-exceed cap on calling rates of $0.05 per minute ("NTE")
14
for all calling types, which the RFP defined to include voice and video calls. The State further made
15
clear during negotiations (as well as in a post-award debriefing) that this NTE rate applied to all types
16
of calls, including video calls and international voice calls.
17
18
4.
GTL proposed charging a per minute video calling rate of $0.25, which is 500% over
the NTE, and a per minute international voice calling rate of $0.07, which is 40% over the NTE.
19
Either of these two rates undisputedly violated the RFP and required that the State disqualify GTL
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
and reject its proposal.
5.
Securus on the other hand, proposed charging rates on all calls that complied with the
NTE requirements in the RFP.
6.
The State not only did not disqualify GTL as required by the RFP, but allowed GTL to
move forward into negotiations with two of its four calling rates significantly exceeding the NTE
rates mandated by the RFP.
27
28
2
PETITION FOR (1) WRIT OF MANDATE, (2) INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
I
2
3
7.
Because the State ignored GTL's violations of the NTE calling rate and improperly
chose GTL over Securus, incarcerated individuals and their families will now pay over $12,000,000
more per year for video calling than they would have under Securus.
4
8.
The State also failed to disqualify GTL for its inability to satisfy the requirement for
5
6
references of past performance with a project of similar complexity as this Contract. In fact, the State
7
awarded GTL incremental points for having 3 products in 3 other jurisdictions for 5 years when in
8
fact GTL admitted under questioning from the State that they were merely "in the process of
9
installing" at some of those jurisdictions.
10
9.
Accordingly, the State violated California law, by among other things, arbitrarily and
11
capriciously conducting the RFP process, abusing its discretion, and exceeding its statutory authority.
12
13
As such, the Contract award to GTL is illegal.
10.
14
In accordance with Public Contract Code § 6611, Securus brings this action to enjoin
15
the award of the Contract to GTL, declare the Contract illegal and null and void, and require the State
16
to disqualify GTL and award the Contract to Securus, the second place finisher.
17
Securus requests that the Court require the State to conduct a re-bid in accordance with California
18
Alternatively,
law.
19
PARTIES
20
II.
21
Petitioner, Securus Technologies, LLC ("Securus"), is among the largest providers of
22
incarcerated individual telecommunications systems in the United States, having designed, installed
23
and serviced incarcerated individual telephone systems at over 3,100 facilities.
24
25
26
12.
Petitioner was an unsuccessful bidder for the Contract for CDCR and has a substantial
interest in the State's expenditures and contract procurement process. Petitioner has been injured by
the State's violation of law in awarding the Contract to GTL, which is not in the best interest of the
27
28
taxpayers of the State of California and would result in unauthorized and/or unlawful waste of public
funds.
3
PETITION FOR (1) WRIT OF MANDATE, (2) INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
1
2
13.
Petitioner believes that the Contract with GTL is illegal and not in the best interest of
the State. In bringing this action, Petitioner seeks to prevent the unauthorized and/or unlawful waste
3
of public funds caused by the State's unlawful, arbitrary and capricious actions. Petitioner seeks to
4
have the State lead a transparent and fair bidding process according to the State's own criteria.
5
6
7
8
9
10
14.
Respondent, CDT, is and was at all times relevant hereto a public agency in the State
of California existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.
15.
Respondent, CDCR, is and was at all times relevant hereto a public agency in the State
of California existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.
16.
Real Party In Interest GTL is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
11
business located in Virginia at 3120 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 300, Falls Church, Virginia 22042.
12
13
17.
The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise,
14
of respondents sued herein as Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Petitioner and Petitioner
15
therefore sues said respondents by said fictitious names. Petitioner will amend this Petition to state
16
the true names and capacities of said respondents when the same have been ascertained. Respondents
17
CDT, CDCR, and Does 1 through 100 are collectively hereafter referred to as the "State."
18
18.
Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all material times
19
herein, each State Respondent named in this Petition was the agent, employee or representative of
20
21
every other State Respondent, including fictitiously-named respondents.
Petitioner is further
22
informed and believes that each State Respondent named herein committed acts and omissions which
23
damaged Petitioner, and in so doing acted within the scope and course of its agency with every other
24
State Respondent named herein and each of them authorized, directed, accepted, ratified and
25
approved of such actions.
26
27
28
4
PETITION FOR (1) WRIT OF MANDATE, (2) INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
1
2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A.
3
The State Issues an RFP for a New Communications and Technology Solution for
CDCR.
4
19.
5
6
On August 11, 2020, the State issued RFP CDCR08112020 for Communications and
Technology Solution for the CDCR.
20.
The State issued two addendums to the RFP; Addendum # 1 was issued on September
7
25, 2020 and Addendum #2 was issued on October 13, 2020.
8
9
10
21.
The RFP solicited bids to provide a communication technology solution ("CTS") for
CDRC which would include three major products per the statement of work provided by the State,
11
incarcerated individual voice calling, incarcerated individual video calling and incarcerated
12
individual tablets.
13
22.
14
One of the goals of the RFP was to provide "enhanced incarcerated individual
communications, provide electronic access to new services and increase access to existing services
15
for incarcerated individuals through advancements in technology to increase rehabilitative
16
17
18
opportunities." Exhibit 1, RFP Parts 1 and 2 Addendum 2 at Section 1.1, page 13 of 230.
23.
The RFP listed as one of its "communications business objectives" to "[p ]rovide
19
communications services consisting of voice, email, e-letters, and video calling to communicate with
20
family, friends, and other authorized individuals." Exhibit 1, RFP Parts 1 and 2 Addendum 2 at
21
Section 1.4.4.1, page 31 of 230.
22
24.
In this regard, the RFP provided that the successful bidder was to implement both
23
traditional voice calling as well as video calling - which the State does not currently have:
24
25
26
In terms of communication services, the most significant change is the implementation
of live video calling and electronic messaging. In the proposed environment,
Incarcerated individuals will have the ability to schedule and make video calls. This
operates much like a correctional-grade Skype call that is monitored and recorded.
27
Exhibit 1, RFP Parts 1 and 2 Addendum 2 at Section 1.4.4.1, page 30 at 232.
28
5
PETITION FOR (1) WRIT OF MANDATE, (2) INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
1
2
3
25.
The Contract awarded pursuant to the RFP would be a revenue generating concession
contract as the State does not incur any cost and is not obligated to pay the contractor for any
products or services.
4
26.
5
6
7
8
9
10
Instead, the contractor would be responsible for all costs associated with
implementation and installation of equipment and services and must pay the State an annual Contract
Administrative Fee of $200,000.
27.
In exchange, the winning bidder would receive the right to operate and collect
revenues charging calling rates.
28.
Another goal of the RFP was to obtain the lowest pricing possible: "The intent is to
11
structure the pricing format in order to facilitate a straightforward comparison among all Bidders
12
13
and foster competition to obtain the best market pricing to ensure the lowest possible rates, fees, and
14
product cost for Incarcerated individuals, family, and friends. Since no commissions are paid to the
15
State, the pricing for CTS services are expected to be lower than other State DOCs and shall not
16
exceed the current rates/pricing for these services. " Exhibit 1, RFP Parts 1 and 2 Addendum 2 at
17
Section 5, page 90-91 of 230.
18
29.
In this regard, the RFP made clear that the bidder's rates for all calls - including
19
video and voice calls - could not exceed a $0.05 per minute NTE cap:
20
21
22
23
24
25
Cost is a primary evaluation criterion weighted at 30% of the total 2,000 points.
Evaluation in this category will be based on the lowest total estimated net cost as
calculated according to the methodology in this section and Section 7, Evaluation.
The State has established not-to-exceed (NTE) rates for this procurement.
Bidder's rates for calls mnst not exceed $.05 per minute. Bidders may propose
rates lower than the NTE identified.
All proposed costs for all line items must be all inclusive, thereby including the cost of
any and all services required in this solicitation.
26
Id. ( emphasis in original).
27
30.
In other words, the RFP was clear in Section 5 - Cost, that the State was establishing
28
an NTE of $0.05 per minute for calling services with the intent of "obtaining the best market pricing
6
PETITION FOR (1) WRIT OF MANDATE, (2) INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
1
2
to ensure the lowest possible rates, fees, and product cost for Incarcerated individuals, family, and
friends". Id.
3
31.
The RFP made clear that a bidder that submitted rates that failed to comply with the
4
5
6
NTE rates should be disqualified. See Exhibit 1, RFP Parts 1 and 2 Addendum 2 at Attachment 2:
Solicitation Submission Checklist page 222 of230 ("0 Cost Complies with NTE rates.").
32,
7
8
video calls sections:
9
Call Detail Record (CDR) - data record produced by the CTS that documents the
details of the telephone, video phone, VRS, and the ASL-VCS.
10
*****
Outbound Call - telephone, video, VRS, or ASL-VCS calls originating from an
incarcerated individual to their family or friends
11
12
*****
Video Call - simultaneous real-time audio and video communication between
incarcerated individual and their family or friends.
13
14
As the RFP's glossary of various terms made clear, "calls" included both voice and
Exhibit 1, RFP Parts 1 and 2 Addendum 2 at Attachment 5, page 223-24 of230 (emphasis added).
15
33.
The State was required to award the Contract to the "value effective proposal."
16
17
Exhibit I, RFP Parts I and 2 Addendum 2 at Section 7, page 97 of 230.
34.
18
The RFP then included a scoring and point allocation methodology with 2200
[9
maximum points available. Exhibit I, RFP Parts I and 2 Addendum 2 at Section 7.3, page 99-100 of
20
230.
21
22
35.
Cost was worth 600 points.
The bidder with the lowest proposed total cost not
exceeding the NTE would receive the maximum score of 600 points and all other bidders would
23
receive a proportionally lower score using the ratio of the lowest proposed total cost to the bidder's
24
25
26
27
proposed total cost applied to the maximum points of 600.
36.
The winning bidder would be awarded a contract with an initial term of six years with
four one-year options to extend for a total 10-year term.
28
7
PETITION FOR (1) WRIT OF MANDATE, (2) INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
B.
The State Conducts Negotiations with Securus and GTL and Awards a New Contract to
GTL.
37,
On or around October 28, 2020, three bidders submitted proposals in response to the
RFP to the State: GTL, Securus, and IC Solutions, Inc. ("ICS").
38.
In its proposal, Securus submit its proposed video calling pricing in accordance with
the RFP's form that requested a proposed rate for video calling per transaction (i.e., per video call),
7
not per minute. Securus proposed a $0.99 rate per transaction (i.e., per video call).
8
9
10
39.
The State then invited GTL and Securus to participate in a negotiation process.
40.
On November 25, 2020, Securus received an email from the State containing an
11
agenda for a negotiation session with the State which stated, "Much of the negotiation will be focused
12
on your cost response."
13
negotiation agenda.
14
41.
See Exhibit 7, 11/25/20 email from K. DeAngelis to S. Cadwell with
The State's agenda made clear that the State wanted a per minute rate for each Video
15
Call that complied with the $0.05 per minute NTE. See Exhibit 7, negotiation agenda. "Each Video
16
17
Call (i.e., Video Visitation) - This is a per minute rate.... If services and features are not available
18
without remaining below the Not to Exceed requirement stated in CTS RFP Parts 1 and 2 Addendum
19
2, section 5, Cost, Bidder must remove all references of those services and features from their bid
20
submission.").
21
22
42.
Securus had a WebEx negotiation session with the State on December 1, 2020.
43.
During the negotiation session, the State informed Securus that its proposed video
23
calling rate of $0.99 was high.
24
25
44.
Securus explained that the $0.99 video calling rate it had submitted was for a 30
26
minute video call.
27
45,
28
The State informed Securus that it must submit its video calling rate as a per minute
rate that complies with the $0.05 NTE.
8
PETITION FOR (1) WRlT OF MANDATE, (2) INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
I
2
3
46.
At the conclusion of negotiations, the State requested Best and Final Offers
("BAFOs") from Securus and GTL to clarify and document understandings reached during
negotiations.
4
47.
On December 9, 2020, Securus and GTL each submitted BAFOs.
48.
Securus' BAFO - in accordance with the direction it received from the State during its
5
6
7
negotiation session - replaced and reduced its original video calling rate of $0.99 per video call with a
8
video calling rate of $0.039 per minute.
9
10
49.
Securus' BAFO clarified its new video calling rate as follows: Video Calling rates
reduced in amount and changed in billing type to$. 039/min."
11
50.
GTL's BAFO, proposed charging $0.25 per minute for video calls and $0.07 per
12
13
minute for international voice calls.
51.
14
15
video call rate to $0 .20 per minute.
16
17
18
19
After submissions of BAFOs, the State apparently requested GTL agreed to lower its
52.
The State and GTL confirmed GTL's $0.20 per minute rate in a December 11, 2020
email:
The State has reviewed GTL' s BAFO. Please confirm GTL will accept the following
terms should GTL be offered a contract award:
• $0.20 per minute Video Calling Rate - GTL Agrees.
20
21
See Exhibit 3, 12/11/20 email from M. Caesar to M. Patterson & K. DeAngelis.
22
53.
The State evaluated the BAFOs utilizing evaluation criteria contained in the RFP.
23
54.
The State determined that GTL's "Total Final Cost" was lower than Securus' as
24
25
shown in the below chart:
Bidder
Option l
Option 2
Securus
$18,949,574.39
$27,934,574.39
GTL
$12,822,062.20
$20,307,062.20
26
27
28
9
PETITION FOR (1) WRIT OF MANDATE, (2) INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
1
See Exhibit 2, Evaluation and Selection Report dated December 18, 2020.
2
3
55.
The State's Evaluation and Selection Report found that "GTL achieved the highest
BAFO score and provided the most value effective Incarcerated individuals Communications and
4
Technology Solution" as shown by the below final scoring:
5
6
1,362.15
1,312.71
600
284
Bidder Total BAFO Score
DVBE Incentive Points Awarded
1962.15
1596.71
100
100
Bidder BAFO Score, with Preferences and Incentives
2062.15
1696.71
Bidder Total Non-Cost Score
7
Bidder Total Cost Score
8
9
10
11
See Exhibit 2, Evaluation and Selection Report dated December 18, 2020.
56.
12
13
pursuant to the RFP to GTL.
14
15
16
On December 22, 2020, the State issued a notification of intent to award a Contract
57.
The next day, December 23, 2020, Securus sent a request pursuant to the California
Public Records Act ("CPRA") to the State requesting documents regarding the RFP process. Securus
sent another CPRA request seeking additional documents regarding the RFP process a few days later.
17
58.
On December 28, 2020, the State executed a Contract with GTL which became
18
19
20
21
22
23
effective on December 31, 2020.
C.
GTL's Contract Violates California Law.
59.
On January 25, 2021, the State produced the first set of documents to Securus in
response to its CPRA requests, but the response did not contain many documents regarding the RFP
process and the evaluation of proposals received in response to the RFP.
24
60.
Then on January 28, 2021, the State produced additional documents regarding the RFP
25
process and the evaluation of proposals received in response to the RFP to Securus.
26
27
28
61.
The State has still failed to produce all evaluation sheets for all the bidders, evaluation
sheets for BAFOs, and has provided only a few responsive emails.
10
PETITION FOR (1) WRIT OF MANDATE, (2) INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
1
2
3
62.
The State's limited document production still clearly demonstrates the impropriety of
the State's award of a contract to GTL, that the award to GTL was arbitrary and capricious and that
the State failed to honor the terms of its own RFP.
4
63.
5
6
In fact, these documents demonstrated that although the State should have rejected or
disqualified GTL' s proposal for failing to meet numerous RFP requirements, it did not and instead
7
continued to negotiate with GTL. Also, these documents show the State's scoring of GTL and
8
Securus was arbitrary, capricious, improper and not in accordance with the RFP.
9
1.
The State Failed to Disqualify GTL for Exceeding the RFP's $0.05 per Minute
NTE Requirement.
64.
Section 5 of the RFP made clear that the bidder's rates for all calls could not exceed
10
11
12
$0.05 per minute and during negotiations, the State confirmed to Securus that the RFP's NTE cap
13
applied to all calls, inclusive of video calls and international calls.
14
65.
GTL failed to comply with the $0.05 NTE and instead proposed charging a per minute
15
video calling rate that is 500% over the NTE and a per minute international voice calling rate that is
16
17
18
40% over the NTE.
66.
The State should have disqualified GTL because both its video calling rate ($0.25 or
19
$0.20 per minute) and its international voice calling rate ($0.07 per minute) fail to comply with the
20
RFP's $0.05 per minute NTE.
21
2.
The State Granted GTL an Unfair Competitive Advantage Over Securus and
Improperly Evaluated Cost.
67.
In accordance with the RFP' s form for submitting video calling rates, Securus
22
23
24
25
26
proposed a per transaction rate for video calls that complied with the RFP's $0.05 per minute NTE
on the assumption that each video call would last 30 minutes.
68.
As such, Securus proposed a $0.99 rate per video call transaction (i.e., $0.99/30
27
28
minutes= $0.033 per minute).
11
PETITION FOR (1) WRlT OF MANDATE, (2) INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
1
2
3
69.
It appears that the State calculated Securus' total video calling cost was $1,332,000
per year by multiplying Securus' video calling rate of $0.99 per transaction/call against the
anticipated annual amount of video calls - 1,800,000.
4
70.
5
GTL proposed a per minute video calling rate of $0.25 (which was at some point
6
reduced to $0.20 per minute although documentation denoting that change has not yet been
7
provided).
8
71.
9
The State did not disqualify GTL for not submitting a rate per video call transaction
nor for exceeding the RFP's $0.05 NTE.
10
72.
Instead, it appears the State calculated GTL's total video calling cost was $450,000
11
per year by multiplying GTL's video calling rate of $0.25 per minute (later reduced to $0.20/min)
12
13
against the anticipated annual amount of calls - 1,800,000. See Exhibit 8, GTL Cost Workbook
73.
14
15
As a result, the State concluded GTL submitted the lowest cost and GTL received a
perfect cost score of 600 points while Securus received a cost score of 284 points.
16
74.
This scoring is invalid and inaccurate.
17
75.
Had the State performed a like comparison of Securus and GTL' s video calling rates
18
on a per transaction basis, it would have determined that GTL's annual video calling cost will be
19
approximately $13,500,000 per year - i.e., $0.25 per minute rate x 30 minutes per call x 1,800,000
20
21
22
calls
= $13,500,000 per year.
76.
In other words, because of the State's improper Cost evaluation and scoring,
23
incarcerated individuals and their friends and families will be paying over $12,000,000 more per year
24
for video calling than they would have under Securus.
25
77.
Moreover, had the State provided Securus with the same opportunity it provided GTL
26
- to charge video calling rates that exceeded the NTE - Securus could have re-structured its cost offer
27
28
during the BAFO to among other things, charge lower voice calling rates and higher video calling
rates, and potentially receive more cost points.
12
PETITION FOR (1) WRlT OF MANDATE, (2) INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
1
2
3
78.
In sum, the State's failure to disqualify GTL granted GTL an unfair competitive
advantage and rendered its cost scoring arbitrary, capricious and improper, and inconsistent with the
requirements of the State's own RFP.
4
3.
The State Failed to Disqualify GTL For Submitting False and Misleading
References.
79.
In order for the State to determine if the bidders could comply with the RFP's
5
6
7
requirements and if they were responsive and/or responsible, the RFP required the bidders to submit
8
customer references:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
The Bidder must complete and submit as part of the proposal response, Exhibit 19 .1 :
Bidder Qualification Form, to confirm that the Bidder's experience meets all the
minimum requirements identified in Exhibit 19.1: Bidder Qualification Form. It is
incumbent upon the Bidder to provide enough detail in Final Proposal for the state to
evaluate the Bidder's ability to meet the requirements and perform the services as
described in this solicitation.
****
The purpose of the bidder reference requirement is to provide the State the ability to
assess the bidder's experience in providing similar or relevant services to other
organizations through a satisfaction rating provided by the bidder's previous project
clients. The description of their projects must be detailed and comprehensive enough
to permit the State to assess the similarity of those projects to the work anticipated for
the Contract resulting from this solicitation. The CDCR cannot be used as a reference
to satisfy this requirement.
Exhibit 1, RFP Parts 1 and 2 Addendum 2 at Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, pages 74-75 of230; see also id
19
at Section 3.22.2, pages 69 of230 ("The purpose of the customer reference requirement is to provide
20
21
22
the State the ability to verify the claims made in the proposal by the Bidder.").
80.
At a minimum, and as a mandatory requirement, the bidder had to submit references
23
showing that it had "Five (5) years of experience providing Incarcerated individual communications
24
services with similar complexity to that outlined in this Statement for Work (SOlfJ. Experience
25
26
must be within the last eight (8) years." Exhibit 1, RFP Parts I and 2 Addendum 2 at Exhibit 19.1,
pages at 169-70 of 230.
27
81.
The RFP further provided that providers may meet this requirement by submitting at
28
least two projects but no more than four projects:
13
PETITION FOR (1) WRlT OF MANDATE, (2) INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
1
2
3
4
The Bidder must provide information for a minimum of two (2) projects. A separate
Exhibit 19.1: Bidder Qualification Form must be submitted for every project used to
meet the minimum required experience. Any given project may meet multiple
requirements, but at least two (2) projects and not more than four (4) projects must be
provided to meet the requirements in Exhibit 19.1: Bidder Qualification Form. If more
than four (4) Bidder Qualification Forms are submitted, only the first four (4) in the
order presented in the proposal will be evaluated.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Exhibit 1, RFP Parts 1 and 2 Addendum 2 at Section 4.1.1, pages at 74 of 230.
82.
The RFP provided that bidders could be rejected for providing false or misleading
statements or non-applicable references:
Proposals which contain false or misleading statements, or which provide references
that do not support an attribute or condition claimed by the bidder, may be rejected. If,
in the opinion of the State, such information was intended to mislead the State in its
evaluation of the proposal, and the attribute, condition, or capability is a requirement
of this solicitation document, it will be the basis for rejection of the bidder's proposal.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Exhibit 1, RFP Parts 1 and 2 Addendum 2 at Section 2.4.11, pages at 49 of 230.
83.
Additionally, if the reference submissions did not demonstrate the bidder had the
requisite years of experience, the Bidder could be deemed non-responsive:
Note: It is the Bidder's responsibility to ensure that each minimum experience
requirement is met in full and is addressed in the Bidder qualification forms in order
for the State to determine compliance to the requirements. If the State cannot
determine that the years of experience for each of the minimum experience
requirements have been met, Bidder's proposal may be deemed non-responsive.
19
Exhibit 1, RFP Parts 1 and 2 Addendum 2 at Exhibit 19, pages at 168 of 230.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
84.
GTL provided the following four references: North Carolina DOC, South Carolina
DOC, Los Angeles County and Maricopa County, Arizona.
85.
The Statement of Work for this RFP includes incarcerated individual telephones,
incarcerated individual tablets and video visitation. None of these references demonstrate that GTL
has experience providing all such services at another jurisdiction that is "similar in complexity."
86.
North Carolina DOC: The State recognized that the information GTL had supplied
27
regarding North Carolina was not "clear as to what quantity and type of services were provided at
28
each location" and requested GTL supply additional information regarding the services it provided to
14
PETITION FOR (1) WRIT OF MANDATE, (2) INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
I
2
3
North Carolina DOC. Exhibit 4, 10/30/20 Bid Clarification or Action Item Request. In response,
GTL stated that it currently provides incarcerated individual telephones for North Carolina DOC, and
"is in the process of deploying GTL's advanced wireless network along with wireless tablets and
4
5
6
7
kiosks for video visitation and offender services." Id. (emphasis added). In other words, GTL
admitted that it does not currently provide North Carolina DOC with tablets and video visitation.
87.
South Caroliua DOC:
GTL only provides South Carolina with incarcerated
8
individual telephone services. It later entered a contract to provide tablets in December 2018 and has
9
not completed roll-out of video visitation. Currently there is only one pilot location for video
10
visitation. See http://www.doc.sc.gov/family/visitation.html. Even if a pilot can be deemed as
11
experience of "similar complexity" as California (which is described clearly in the statement of work
12
13
14
15
to include video, tablets, AND telephone services), at best GTL has only been providing tablets and
video visitation to South Carolina for two years, though they claimed 5 years of experience.
88.
Maricopa Couuty, Arizona: GTL entered a contract to provide tablets and video
16
visitation to Maricopa County that was effective Dember 2019. See Exhibit 5. Even assuming the
17
execution of a contract signified the start of providing services, at best, GTL only has one year of
18
providing Maricopa County with services similar of "similar complexity" as contained in the RFP,
19
though they claimed 5 years of experience.
20
21
89.
Los Angeles County, California:
The State recognized that GTL's "project
22
description and/or description of services provided is insufficient to demonstrate similar complexity"
23
and requested GTL provide additional information so the State could evaluate GTL' s ability to meet
24
the requirements. Exhibit 4, 10/30/20 Bid Clarification or Action Item Request. In response, GTL
25
admitted it only provides limited video visitation on a small scale and does not provide tablets, stating
26
that it currently provides "kiosks for video visitation and video relay service as well as lobby kiosks
27
for trust deposits." Id.
28
15
PETITION FOR (1) WRIT OF MANDATE, (2) INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
2
3
4.
The State Improperly Scored References and Minimnm Qualifications.
90.
As explained above, none of the four references submitted by GTL show that it has the
requisite experience demanded in the RFP of providing all three services.
4
91.
Nor does the sum of experience, even if measured against contract start dates, meet the
5
6
7
minimum required by the RFP's Statement of Work- incarcerated individual telephones, incarcerated
individual tablets and video visitation for five years.
8
92.
As such, GTL's proposal should have again been rejected.
9
93.
However, the State scored GTL as providing all three services to North Carolina for
10
five years, as providing all three services to South Carolina for five years, as providing all three
11
services to Maricopa County for five years, and as providing two out of three services to Los Angeles
12
13
County. See Exhibit 6, GTL reference scoring worksheets.
94.
14
15
when in fact they did not meet the minimum qualifications to bid as outlined by the RFP.
16
17
18
As a result, GTL received 24 points for its references, and 16 points for experience,
95.
This scoring violates the principles of the issued RFP and contradicts the State's own
commentary to GTL.
D.
The State Refuses to Set Aside its Illegal Award.
19
96.
On February 3, 2021, Securus representatives had a debriefing conference with Katie
20
21
DeAngelis (CDCR Procurement) and David Sanchez (CDCR Procurement) as provided under the
22
RFP to obtain additional insight into the procurement process. Securus attempted to raise the above-
23
described issues with the State without having to take formal legal action as the RFP provides for no
24
other protest process.
25
26
97.
During the debriefing conference, the State confirmed what it told Securus during
negotiations - that the $0.05 per minute NTE applied to video calls and that Securus should submit its
27
28
proposed video calling rate as the RFP requested per minute despite the RFP form's request for a per
transaction (i.e., per video call) rate.
16
PETITION FOR (1) WRIT OF MANDATE, (2) INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
1
2
3
98.
During the debriefing conference, Securus informed the State that the documents the
State had produced demonstrated that GTL's proposed video calling rate was over 500% the NTE
rate, and GTL' s proposed international rate was 40% over the NTE rate.
4
5
6
99.
Securus also noted for the State that had it properly evaluated GTL' s video calling
rates as per the stated terms of the RFP, it would have determined that GTL's annual video calling
7
cost will be approximately $13,500,000 per year (i.e., $0.25 per minute rate x 30 minutes per call x
8
1,800,000 calls= $13,500,000 per year).
9
10
100.
The State declined to respond or discuss these issues in the debriefing and directed
Securus to file this Petition for a Writ, but thanked Securus for bringing this "potentially serious
11
issue to their attention".
12
13
14
101.
As per the State's direction during the debriefing, Securus is filing this Petition to
address these issues.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
15
(Writ of Mandate Against the State)
16
102.
Petitioner restates and incorporates by reference all of the foregoing paragraphs of this
17
18
19
Petition as if fully set forth herein.
103.
Petitioner was substantially prejudiced, injured and adversely impacted by the State's
20
violation of public purchasing laws in that (a) the State arbitrarily and capriciously failed to follow
21
California law and its own RFP requirements during the bid selection and negotiation process and (b)
22
the State arbitrarily and capriciously failed to reject GTL's bid once it became clear that GTL's bid
23
lacked the evidentiary support to meet the RFP' s requirements to qualify as a responsive and
24
responsible bidder. These failures deprived State taxpayers from obtaining the full benefit of the bid
25
26
27
28
process and obtain the bidder with the most value effective solution.
l 04.
Pursuant to California law, the State owes its taxpayers a bidding process that
complies with California law and obtains the most value effective solution.
17
PETITION FOR (1) WRIT OF MANDATE, (2) INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
1
2
3
105.
Petitioner lacks a plain and speedy remedy other than a Writ of Mandate since the
award of the Contract is unique and the State has improperly refused to strictly comply with
California law. The Contract has been executed by GTL and the State and any delay in obtaining
4
relief will result in the Contract being performed by a bidder illegally awarded the Contract. As such,
5
6
7
8
9
10
Petitioner and the taxpayers of the State will be deprived of the most advantageous Contract and the
one with the most value effective solution.
106.
The State also violated the underlying purpose of the public bidding process by
introducing uncertainty and haphazard guesswork into a bidding contractor's determination. In view
of the State's determinations, bidders could not submit meaningful bids.
11
107.
Petitioner brings this Petition with all due urgency because the State has already
12
13
14
awarded and signed the Contract with GTL at rates that exceed the NTE requirements of the RFP.
108.
The Contract is illegal, and null and void because, GTL was a non-responsive and/or
15
non-responsible bidder who cannot provide the State with the contractually mandated products and
16
services at or below the prices to end users required by the RFP itself.
17
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
18
(Injunction Against the State)
19
20
21
22
109.
Petitioner restates and incorporates by reference all of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Petition as if fully set forth herein.
110.
California's public contracting laws and regulations are designed to invite and ensure
fair and open competition, guard against favoritism, improvidence, fraud and corruption.
23
24
25
26
27
28
111.
Under California law, the public bidding process must be open, honest and unbiased.
112.
As described above, the award of the Contract to GTL was contrary to California law
and arbitrary and capricious and/or an abuse of discretion.
113.
Awarding the Contract to GTL is not in the best interest of the State nor is it the most
advantageous to the State.
18
PETITION FOR (1) WRlT OF MANDATE, (2) INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
1
114.
2
contracting system.
The award of the Contract to GTL seriously undermines the integrity of the public
3
115.
These improprieties and discrepancies have been brought to the attention of the State
4
but it has failed to take action to address them.
5
6
116.
Upon information and belief, the State is moving forward with the implementation of
7
the Contract to GTL.
8
117.
9
10
Petitioner has been substantially prejudiced and aggrieved by the State's award of the
Contract to GTL.
118.
Without Petitioner's action, the State's actions would go unchallenged, harming the
11
taxpayers and undermining the integrity of the public contracting process.
12
13
119.
Petitioner is an aggrieved bidder in the RFP process and has a substantial interest in
14
the State awarding public contracts to bidders without the award being arbitrary, capricious, an abuse
15
of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
16
17
18
120.
If the Court does not enter an injunction, there will be significant and irreparable harm
to the Petitioner and taxpayers of California and the competitive procurement process as set forth
above and there is no fully adequate remedy at law.
19
121.
On the other hand, if the Court does enter an injunction, there will be no harm to the
20
21
State because the State will continue to receive incarcerated individual telephone service from GTL.
22
122.
Petitioner is likely to prevail on the merits of the claims herein.
23
123.
Any possible harm to Respondents by granting a preliminary and permanent
24
25
26
'
injunction would be outweighed by the harm suffered to Petitioner and the taxpayers of California if
no injunction were granted.
124.
An injunction would not adversely affect the public interest but instead would protect
27
28
the public interest.
125.
The Petitioner's right to relief is clear.
19
PETITION FOR (1) WRIT OF MANDATE, (2) INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
2
3
126.
Petitioner has no adequate remedies at law.
127.
Petitioner's injuries cannot be compensated by an award of damages.
128.
Redress through other channels is unavailable.
129.
If the award of the Contract to GTL is not overturned now, it will be so later, which
4
5
6
will cause unnecessary expense and delay.
7
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
8
9
IO
11
12
(Declaratory Judgment Against the State)
130.
Petitioner restates and incorporates by reference all of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Petition as if fully set forth herein.
131.
The State's award of the Contract to GTL is illegal in that it contravenes California
law, including California public bidding laws.
13
132.
The award of the Contract to GTL is also arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of
14
15
16
discretion for the reasons identified herein.
133.
An actual controversy presently exists between the Petitioner, on the one hand, and the
17
Respondents, on the other hand, with respect to the award of the Contract in that Petitioner contends
18
and the Respondents deny that the award of the Contract to GTL is illegal, arbitrary and capricious.
19
20
134.
Petitioner and Respondents have a direct and immediate interest in the award of the
Contract to GTL.
21
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
22
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for judgment as follows:
23
(I)
On the First Cause of Action for Writ of Mandate Against the State, a writ of mandate
24
25
26
27
directing the State: (a) to rescind the Contract it entered into with GTL; and (b) award the Contract to
Securus as the highest scoring responsible and responsible bidder, or conduct a re-bid in full
compliance with California law.
28
20
PETITION FOR (1) WRIT OF MANDATE, (2) INJUNCTION, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
l
2
On the Secqnd Cause of Aetion f9r Injunction Against the State, an order that: (a)
prelimfuarily Md permanently enjoins the State from awarding the Contract to GTL; (b} requires the
3
State to rescind the Confract it entered into with GTL; and (c) award the Contract to Securus as the
4
5
6
7
highest scoring responsible and responsible bidder, or conduct a re-bid ln full compliance with
California law.
(3)
On the Third Cause of Action for Declaratory Judgment Againm; the State, 11n order
&
declaxing that: (a) the State's award of the Contract to G'TL is illegal and ntlll and void; (b) any
9
Contract with GTL ls illegal, null ant void, and (c} the State must awJrd the Contract to Seem-us as
10
ti
the highest sco.rt11g responsible and responsible bidder, or conduct a re-b.id in full compliance with
California law;
12
(4)
Petitioner's reasonable attorneys' fees as permitted under law;
14
(5)
Costs of suit; and
15
(6)
Such other relief as the Court deems just a,nd proper.
13
16
17
18
19
Dated: February 11, 2021
20
21
22
23
24
25
26.
27
28
21
PETITION FOR (1) WRlTOF MANDA'l'E, (2)JNJUNCT10N, AND (3) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
I
)
l
3
STA'JEOFTEXAS
4
coumv OF DE."lTO?'~
s
6
7
s
9
I ha~ read the •fa:soing MITITIQ!'I' FOR WRIT OF ~IAl'(DA·n;. filed by Sccun.as1
Tedmologics, IU.C and blow its COftlllll!S.
lam Sala Vicel'midmt of~Tc:dmologics, U.C, lll~Pctiliont6ili !hi,~ng. and
I am mlhonad ·10 11talie lhis vent.anon
10
•doa!ment -
lllllG of my
fot
Md oo its bdi.alf. The omtt«s -cd in !he for,egoing
ov,n knowlc,dge c-xcq,t ti' 10 those imittM which arc stated oo lafarmalion
and belief, and as 10 those mi'ltcu I. bei- lllcm 10 be tNc..
Jl
13
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Z1
28
i. dcclw f.lMd l'ffl<y of perjury ul'>du 1he la"'l of the Stt11e of California lba1. 11,e fCIIJCgcing
is 1r11e·andffiT«t..
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
County of Sacramento
720 Ninth Street~ Room 102
Sacramento, CA 95814-1380
(916) 87 4-5522 - Website www.saccourt.com
GUIDE TO THE PROCEDURES FOR PROSECUTING PETITIONS
FOR PREROGATIVE WRITS
(as specified in Local Rule 2.26(E))
This guide to the procedures for prosecuting petitions for writs of mandate and other
prerogative writs in the Sacramento Superior Court is made available for your general
information pursuant to Local Rule 2.26(E). A protocol for each department to which
writs are assigned (hereinafter "assigned writ department") supplements these procedures
with respect to the filing of documents, the scheduling of hearings, and the use of
tentative rulings. The protocol is available from the assigned writ department and on the
"Civil" page of the court's website under Prerogative Writ Departments and Protocol.
Topic
Filing a Writ Petition ........................................................................................................... 2
Serving a Writ Petition ................................................................................................................ 2
Filing Subsequent Papers ............................................................................................................ 2
Noticing Related Writ Cases and Possible Consolidation .................................................. 3
Applying for a Temporary Stay in Administrative Mandate Proceedings
(CCP § 1094.5 (g) or (h)) ....................................................................................................... 4
Applying for a Temporary Stay in Traditional Mandate Proceedings (CCP § 1085) .............. 5
Bringing Motions before the Hearing on the Merits of a Writ Petition .................................... 6
Setting a Hearing on the Merits of a Writ Petition ..................................................................... 7
(1) By noticing a hearing on a writ petition........................................................................... 7
(2) By securing issuance of an alternative writ ..................................................................... 8
Applying for a Continuance ........................................................................................................ 9
Dismissing a WritPetition ........................................................................................................ 10
Lodging an Administrative Record .......................................................................................... 10
The Hearing on the Merits ........................................................................................................ 10
Appearing by Telephone ........................................................................................................... 11
Preparing a Judgment and Peremptory Writ ............................................................................ 11
Guide to Procedures For Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs
Revised 1.1.2014
Page 1 of 11
Superior Court of California. County of Sacramento
Civil
Filing a Writ Petition:
Step
Action
1.
File an original and two copies of the petition and a civil case cover sheet at the civil
front counter in Room 102 on the first floor of the main courthouse.
Or mail an original and two copies of the petition and a civil case cover sheet to the
Civil Division - Room 102, 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
2.
Pay the filing fee pursuant to Government Code section 70611 in Room 102.
3.
Receive from the civil front counter clerk a Notice of Case Assignment and a copy of
this Guide to the Procedures for Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs.
Serving a Writ Petition:
Step
Action
1.
Serve the writ petition on respondent(s) and real party(ies) in compliance with the
requirements of Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sections 1107 and 1088.5. Until
compliance with these statutory service requirements is established by the filing of an
appropriate proof of service, the court cannot hear or act on the petition.
2.
Along with the writ petition, serve copies of the Notice of Case Assignment and this
Guide to the Procedures for Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs.
For service of an application for an alternative writ, see below, "Setting a
Hearing on the Merits of a Writ Petition, (2) Securing issuance of an alternative
writ."
Filing Subsequent Documents:
Step
Action
1.
File an original and two copies of all subsequent documents related to the writ petition
either at the civil front counter in Room 102 or by mail addressed to the Civil Division Room 102,720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Exception: Documents filed one day before or on the day of the hearing shall be filed
with the courtroom clerk in the assigned writ department after any applicable fees
have been paid in Room 102.
2.
File documents by fax in compliance with rule 2.303 of the California Rules of Court.
Documents faxed directly to the court will not be filed.
3.
Specify on the first page of each document the date, time and department of any
scheduled hearing to which the document applies. To set a hearing, see below,
"Bringing Motions before the Hearing on the Merits of a Writ Petition" and "Setting a
Hearing on the Merits of a Writ Petition."
Guide to Procedures For Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs
Revised 1.1.2014
Page 2 of 11
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
Civil
Noticing Related
Writ Cases and
Possible Consolidation:
Steo
Action
I.
When filing a Notice of Related Case pursuant to rule 3.300(d) of the California Rules of
Court regarding two or more writ cases assigned to different judges in this court, file the
Notice in each writ case.
2.
When filing a Response to a Notice of Related Case pursuant to rule 3.300(g) of the
California Rules of Court, file the Response in each writ case.
3.
Serve the Notice or Response on each party to each case.
Note that the court proceeds with respect to related writ cases under rule
3.300(h)(l) of the California Rules of Court (CRC) as follows:
• The judges assigned to civil writ cases listed in a Notice Of Related Case filed
and served pursuant to CRC 3.300(d) identify which one of them is assigned to
the earliest filed case, information which should be included in the Notice of
Related Case pursuant to CRC 3.300(c)(2). That judge proceeds under CRC
3.300(h)(l)(A) to determine whether the cases are related within the meaning of
CRC 3.300(a).
• If the judge assigned to the earliest filed case determines that the cases are
related, the judge orders the cases related and assigned to his or her department.
That order is filed in each of the related cases and served on the parties to each
of the related cases pursuant to CRC 3.300(i). In addition, an Amended Notice
of Case Assignment, reassigning to the judge each of the related cases not
previously assigned to him or her,. is filed and served upon all parties to each
reassigned case. Courtesy copies of the order and Amended Notice(s) of Case
Assignment are sent to the judges previously assigned to any of the related
cases.
•
If the judge assigned to the earliest filed case determines that the cases are not
related within the meaning ofCRC 3.300(a), the judge issues a minute order
stating and briefly explaining the determination. This minute order is filed in
each of the cases listed in the Notice of Related Case and is served on all parties
to the listed cases pursuant to CRC 3.300(i).
•
In response to an order determining that the cases are not related, any party to
any of the cases listed in the Notice of Related Case may file a motion pursuant
to CRC 3.300(h)(l )(D) to have the cases related. The motion must be filed with
the Presiding judge or a judge designated by the Presiding Judge.
Guide to Procedures For Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs
Revised 1.1.2014
Page 3 of 11
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
Civil
Applying for a
Temporary Stay in
Administrative Mandate
Proceedings (CCP § 1094.5 (g) or (h)):
Step
1.
Action
Prepare an ex parte application for an order temporarily staying operation of the
administrative decision under review in the proceeding. Identify whether the
temporary stay order is requested pursuant to subdivision (g) or (h) of the CCP
§ 1094.5. Specify "Ex Parle" in the title of the application.
Pursuant to rules 3.1201 and 3.1202 of the California Rules of Court and this Guide
to the Procedures for Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs, an ex parte
application for a stay order includes the following supporting documents and papers:
• Endorsed copy of the petition .
• Points and authorities, declarations and other supporting documents, including
relevant portions of the administrative record if available.
• Proposed order to show cause why the administrative decision under review in the
proceeding should not be temporarily stayed pending a hearing on the merits of the
writ petition (OSC). This proposed OSC should contain:
- blank spaces for the date and time of the hearing on the OSC,
- an order for service of the OSC and any supporting papers not previously served
with a blank space for a date of service prior to the hearing on the OSC, and
- an order staying the administrative decision pending the hearing on the OSC.
• Proposed stay order.
• Notice of hearing on the petition with blank spaces for date and time (unless
the stay is being requested in conjunction with an application for an alternative
writ).
• Declaration regarding notice, as specified in rule 3.1204 .
In addition, CCP § 1094.5 (g) and {h) require that proof of service of a copy of the
application on the respondent accompany an application for a stay. See
subdivisions (g) and (h) for required manner of service.
2.
Contact the assigned writ department to reserve an ex parte hearing date and time and
to determine whether the assigned writ department requires any of the documents or
papers listed above in Step 1 to be filed before the hearing. Note that some writ
departments hear writ matters only on Fridays.
3.
Notify respondent(s) and real party(ies) of the hearing on the ex parte stay
application in accordance with rule 3.1203 of the California Rules of Court. Include
the details of this notification in the declaration regarding notice prepared pursuant to
rule 3.1204.
Note: The Court prefers at least 48 hours' notice but, upon a showing of urgency,
will accept less notice.
4.
If the assigned writ department does not require any of the documents listed above in
Step 1 to be filed before the ex parte hearing, file and serve the documents and papers
as soon as possible and no later than the time of the hearing. (See rule 3.1206 of the
California Rules of Court.)
Guide to Procedures For Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs
Revised 1.1.2014
Page 4 of 11
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
Civil
At the ex parte hearing, depending on the nature of the factual and legal issues
raised by the stay application and the practical exigencies of the matter, the court
will either rule on the stay application immediately or issue the proposed OSC with
or without a temporary stay order pending the hearing on the OSC at a specified
date and time.
If the court grants a stay at the ex parte hearing or the hearing on the OSC, the court
will sign and file the proposed stay order and set a date and time for a hearing on the
merits of the petition. The court clerk will record the hearing date and time in the
notice of hearing on the petition, or if the court has ordered the issuance of an
alternative writ, in the alternative writ.
If the Court denies a stay at the ex parte hearing or the hearing on the OSC, the
court, upon petitioner's request, will set a date and time for a hearing on the merits
of the petition. The clerk will record the hearing date and time in the notice of
hearing on the petition, or if the court has ordered the issuance of an alternative writ,
in the alternative writ.
Applying for a
Temporary Stay
in Traditional Mandate
Proceedings (CCP § 1085):
Step
Action
1.
Follow the statutory and regulatory provisions for obtaining a temporary restraining order
(TRO), an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued (OSC).
and/or a preliminary injunction, set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure (including but not
limited to CCP §§ 525, 526, 527, 528 and 529) and rule 3.1150 of the California Rules of
Court. These provisions constitute rules of practice for temporary stays in mandate
proceedings brought under CCP § 1085 in the absence of temporary stay provisions
specific to such mandate proceedings. (See CCP § 1109.)
2.
When following the statutory and regulatory procedures for obtaining a TRO and/or an
OSC, comply with the ex parte procedures outlined above in "Applying for a Temporary
Stay in Administrative Mandate Proceedings" and in rule 3.1201 et seq. of the California
Rules of Court.
3.
If no TRO or OSC is sought, notice a motion for a preliminary injunction following the
procedures set forth below in "Bringing Motions Before the Hearing on the Merits
Note that a temporary stay in proceedings on a petition for a writ of prohibition may
be obtained by following the procedures set forth below under "Setting a Hearing
on the Merits of a Petition, (2) Securing issuance of alternative writ." An alternative
writ of prohibition, unlike an alternative writ of mandate, stays specified action by
the respondent until further order of the court. (See CCP §§ 1087, 1104.)
Guide to Procedures For Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs
Revised 1.1.2014
Page 5 of 11
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
Civil
Bringing Motions before
The Hearing on the
Merits of a Writ Petition:
Motions on the pleadings and other pretrial matters brought in civil actions -including motions for change of venue, demurrers, motions to strike, motions to
dismiss, discovery motions, and motions for summary judgment -- may generally
be brought in writ proceedings. (See CCP § 1109.)
Motions addressing the merits of the petition in whole or in part should be
calendared for a hearing at the same time as the hearing on the merits. Motions
directed at resolving issues preliminary to and distinct from the issues related to the
merits of the petition, such as untimeliness of the petition under an applicable statute
of limitations, should be calendared before the hearing on the merits of a writ
petition. The court, in the exercise ofits discretion to control the order oflitigation
before it, may advance the hearing on a motion to a date before the hearing on the
merits or may postpone a motion to the hearing on the merits when such
advancement or postponement will promote the efficient conduct and disposition of
the proceeding.
Because a writ petition is usually disposed of by a hearing on the merits which is
limited to oral argument on written briefs and documentary evidence, the usefulness
of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication in economically
disposing of an unmeritorious case or claim is substantially reduced in writ
proceedings. Thus, before bringing a motion for summary judgment or summary
adjudication, counsel should carefully evaluate whether the purpose of the motion
can be achieved more directly and completely through a hearing on the merits of the
petition.
Action
Step
1.
Contact the assigned writ department to reserve a date and time available on the
department's calendar for a hearing on the motion. Prior to reserving a date, contact the
other parties to the writ petition and determine their availability on the date. Some
assigned writ departments hear writ matters only on Fridays.
2.
Notice the motion in accordance with the civil law and motion procedures in CCP § 1005
and in compliance with the California Rules of Court, including rules 3.1110 through
3.1113, 3.1115, 3.1116, 3.1300, and 3.1320 through 3.1324. Comply with the page limits
for memoranda set forth in rule 3.1113.
If the assigned writ department uses the tentative ruling system, the notice of motion must
contain tentative ruling language available from the department.
Guide to Procedures For Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs
Revised 1.1.2014
Page 6 of 11
Superior Court of California. County of Sacramento
Civil
Setting a Hearing
on the Merits of a
Writ Petition:
If a hearing on the merits of a writ petition has not been set in conjunction with an
ex parte hearing on an application for a temporary stay, it may be set either by
(1) noticing a hearing on the petition or (2) securing issuance of an alternative
writ. Note: The court prefers, as more efficient and economical for both itself
and the parties, the procedure of noticing a hearing on the petition.
The date set for a hearing on the merits of a writ petition, whether by notice or
alternative writ, should allow the parties to file briefs in accordance with the
following schedule established in Local Rule 2.26(D):
Opening brief:
Due 45 days before the hearing
Opposition brief:
Due 25 days before the hearing
Reply brief:
Due 15 days before the hearing
Note that Local Rule 2.26(D) limits the length of opening and opposition briefs to
30 pages and reply briefs to 20 pages instead of the page limits in rule 3.1113 of the
California Rules of Court.
The date of the hearing on the merits may be expedited and the briefing schedule
shortened upon an application setting forth circumstances warranting an expedited
hearing. The application for an expedited hearing may be made orally at a hearing
for a temporary stay or alternative writ or on an ex parte basis in accordance with
rules 3.1201 through 3.1206 of the California Rules of Court.
(1) Noticing a hearing on a writ petition
Action
Step
I.
2.
3.
4.
Contact the assigned writ department to reserve an available date and time for a hearing
on the writ petition. Prior to reserving a date, contact the other parties to the writ petition
and determine their availability on the date. Writ petitions are normally heard on Fridays.
Prepare and file a notice of hearing on the writ petition specifying the reserved hearing
date and time. If the assigned writ department uses the tentative ruling system, the
notice of hearing must contain tentative ruling language available from the department.
File the notice of hearing either at the civil front counter in Room 102 or by mail
addressed to the Civil Division - Room 102, 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Serve a copy of the notice of hearing on respondent(s) and real party(ies) no later than the
time allowed for filing and serving the opening brief. If not previously served, the writ
petition, the Notice of Assignment, and this Guide should also be served no later than the
time for filing and serving the opening brief.
Guide to Procedures For Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs
Revised 1.1.2014
Page 7 of 11
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
Civil
(2) Securing issuance of an alternative writ
The alternative writ is an order to show cause that calendars a writ petition for a
hearing on the merits. With the exception of an alternative writ of prohibition
issued pursuant to CCP § 1104, the alternative writ does not, in and of itself,
accomplish a stay or afford any affirmative relief.
Note that, with the alternative writ method, two writs may be issued in the
proceeding. First, the alternative writ is issued to set a hearing on the merits of the
petition. Second, a peremptory writ may issue after the hearing on the merits.
Action
Step
I.
Prepare an ex parte application for an alternative writ. Specify "Ex Parle" in the title of
the application.
As provided in rules 3.1201 and 3.1202 of the California Rules of Court and this Guide,
an ex parte application for an alternative writ includes the following supporting
documents and papers:
• Endorsed copy of the petition .
• Points and authorities and any other supporting documents .
• Proposed order directing issuance of alternative writ.
• Proposed alternative writ with blank spaces for the date and lime of a hearing on the
petition. (Include a signature block for the clerk, not the judge.)
• Declaration regarding notice, as specified in rule 3.1204 .
2.
Contact the assigned writ department to reserve an available date and time for an ex parte
hearing on the application for an alternative writ and to determine whether the department
requires the papers listed above in Step 1 to be filed before the hearing.
Note that some writ departments hear writ matters only on Fridays. Also note that,
absent a showing of good cause or waiver by the respondent(s) and real party(ies),
some departments will not issue an alternative writ unless the writ petition and
application for the alternative writ have been served on respondenl(s) and real
party(ies) at least five days before the ex parte hearing. (See CCP § 1088, requiring
service of copy of petition in conjunction with application for alternative writ;
CCP § 1107. providing a live-day period for respondent(s) and real party(ies) to
respond to a writ petition after receiving service of the petition.)
3.
Notify the respondent(s) and real party(ies) of the date and time of the ex parte hearing
on the alternative writ pursuant to rule 3.1203 of the California Rules of Court. Include
the details of this notification in the declaration regarding notice pursuant to rule
3.1204.
Note: The Court prefers at least 48 hours' notice but, upon a showing of urgency, will
accept less notice.
4.
If the assigned writ department does not require any of the documents listed above in Step
1 to be filed before the hearing, file and serve on all parties the documents and papers as
soon as possible and no later than the time of the hearing.
Guide to Procedures For Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs
Revised 1.1.2014
Page8of11
Superior Court of California. County of Sacramento
Civil
If the court grants the application for an alternative writ, the court signs and files the
proposed order directing issuance of the alternative writ that sets the petition for a
hearing on the merits. The clerk then issues the proposed alternative writ with the
date and time of the hearing and provides it to the petitioner after the petitioner has
paid the issuance fee in Room 102. The writ must be served upon respondent(s)
and real party(ies) in the same manner as a summons in a civil action unless the
court expressly orders otherwise. (See CCP §§ 1073, 1096.) Once served, the writ
must be filed with a proof of service.
Applying for a
Continuance:
After a hearing has been set on a motion or on the merits of a petition, it may be
continued only upon approval of the Court. If the continuance requires a change in
the briefing schedule, such change must also be approved.
Step
].
Action
Present a telephone request for a continuance of the hearing to the clerk in the assigned
writ department, including the reason(s) for the continuance and any necessary changes
in the briefing schedule. Present the request as far in advance of the scheduled hearing
date as possible.
Upon the court"s approval. the clerk will provide available dates on the court"s calendar to
which the hearing may be continued.
2.
Promptly confer with all counsel to agree upon a mutually convenient hearing date from
among the dates provided by the clerk and any necessary changes in the briefing
schedule.
If counsel cannot agree to a continuance. a new hearing date and/or changes in the
briefing schedule. the party seeking the continuance may apply for a continuance by
noticed motion.
3.
Promptly present to the court a stipulation signed by all parties. including the reason for
the continuance, the agreed upon hearing date and any agreed upon changes in the
briefing schedule, with a proposed order.
Pay the filing fee for the stipulation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code
section 70617 in Room 102.
4.
When the stipulation and order has been signed and filed by the Court, serve the
stipulation and order on all parties.
Note that these procedures do not apply when a motion is dropped from the
calendar by the moving party. In such circumstances, the moving party must
telephonically notify the court and all other parties as far as possible in advance of
the date on which the motion is to be heard and send a confirming letter to the court
with copies to the other parties.
Guide to Procedures For Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs
Revised 1.1.2014
Page 9 of 11
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
Civil
Dismissing a
Writ Petition:
Action
Step
1.
Promptly notify the assigned writ department pursuant to rule 3.1385 of the California
Rules of Court when a writ proceeding is settled or otherwise disposed of.
2.
File a dismissal of the writ proceeding in the assigned writ department within 45 days after
the date of the settlement pursuant to rule 3.1385(b) or after the date specified in the
notice of conditional settlement pursuant to rule 3.1385(c).
Lodging an
Administrative Record:
Action
Step
1.
When securing a date and time for a hearing on the merits of the petition, inform the clerk
in the assigned writ department about the size of any administrative record in the case.
Determine the department's preferences regarding the format, binding and container for
the administrative record.
2.
Lodge the administrative record with the assigned writ department no later than 25 days
prior to the hearing on the merits of a writ petition. If the record is not lodged by this time,
some assigned writ departments may take the matter off calendar.
Consult with the assigned writ department if you wish to lodge the administrative record
more than 25 days before the hearing on the merits of a writ petition.
3.
Attach a cover sheet to the administrative record and any boxes containing the record
that lists the:
• Case name,
• Case number,
• Date and time of the hearing .
At the hearing on the merits of the petition, the court will mark the administrative
record as an exhibit and admit it into evidence. At the conclusion of the
proceedings on the petition, the court may return the administrative record to the
party who lodged it or destroy it pursuant to CCP § 1952 through 1952.3 and
subdivision (i) ofCCP § 1094.5.
The Hearing on the Merits:
All hearings on writ petitions proceed by way of oral argument. If a party wishes to
present oral testimony at the hearing, the party must obtain permission pursuant to
rule 3.1306 of the California Rules of Court.
Guide to Procedures For Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs
Revised 1.1.2014
Page 10 of 11
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
Civil
If the assigned writ department uses a tentative ruling system and posts a tentative
ruling on the court day before the hearing on the writ petition, a party desiring to be ·
heard must contact the clerk and request oral argument by the time designated in the
posted tentative ruling. When requesting oral argument, the party must advise the
clerk that all other parties have been notified.
Appearing by
Telephone:
Parties may appear by telephone in accordance with Local Rule 2.04.
Note that some assigned writ departments permit telephonic appearances in
hearings on motions only on a limited basis and in hearings on the merits of a writ
petition only under compelling circumstances.
Preparing a
Judgment and
Peremptory Writ:
If the court denies the writ petition, the party designated by the court shall,
pursuant to rule 3 .1312 of the California Rules of Court, prepare, serve on all
parties, and present to the court a judgment denying the petition.
If the court grants the writ petition:
Step
1.
Action
The party designated by the court prepares (1) a judgment granting the writ petition and
(2) a peremptory writ The peremptory writ includes a signature block for the clerk, not the
judge.
2.
Pursuant to rule 3.1312 of the California Rules of Court, prepare, serve on all parties, and
present to the court a judgment granting the petition and the peremptory writ The
judgment, when approved, will be signed by the court. The clerk will issue the peremptory
writ and provide it to the petitioner for service upon respondent(s) and real party(ies) after
the petitioner pays the issuance fee in Room 102.
3.
Serve a copy of both the judgment granting the writ petition and the peremptory writ on the
respondent(s) and real party(ies). The writ must be served in the same manner as
summons in a civil action. (CCP §§ 1073, 1096, 1107.)
4.
Return the original peremptory writ with a proof of service to the assigned writ department
for filing.
5.
Prepare, serve, and file in the assigned writ department a notice of entry of judgment
pursuant to CCP § 664.5(a).
Guide to Procedures For Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs
Revised 1.1.2014
Page 11 of11
I
i'l
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
County of Sacramento
720 Ninth Street Room 102
Sacramento, CA 95814-1380
(916) 874-5522
www.saccourt.ca.gov
I
NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT
Proceeding for Writ of Mandate and/or Prohibition
Case Number: 34-2021-80003594-CU-WM-GDS
This case lras been assigned for all purposes to the judiciaJ. officer indici.ted below pursuant to rule 3. 734 of the
California Rules of Court and Sacramento Superior Court Local Rule 2.01; it is exempt from the requirements of
the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act and the Case Management Program under Chapter 11 of the
Sacramento Superior Court Local Rules.
·
JUDGE
COURT LOCATION
DEPT.
Jame& P. Arguelles
Gordon D. Schaber Courthouse
17
The petitioner shall serve all parties with a copy of this order and a copy of the Sacramento Superior Court Guide to
the Procedures for Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs. The Guide is available in Room 102 of the
courthouse, from the clerk of the department to which this matter has been assigned, and on the "Civil" page of the
Sacramento Superior Court internet website (www.saccourt.ca.gov}.
Scheduling
Contact the clerk in the assigned department to schedule any judicial proceedings in this
matter, including hearings on ex parte applicatious and noticed motions.
Hon. James P. Arguelles
DEPT.
17
Hon. Steven M. Gevercer
27
Hon. Shelleyanne W.L. Chang
21
23
JUDGE
Hon. Laurie M. Earl
PflONE
(916) 874-5511
(916) 874-6697
(916) 874-5924
(916) 874-5754
Other Information
Pursuant to Local Rule 2.01, all documents submitted for filing in this case shall be filed in person at the. Civil Front
Counter (Room 102) or by mail addressed to the Clerk of the Sacramento Superior Court, Attn: Civil Division-Room
102, with the exception of certain documents filed on the day of the hearing. For specific requirements, please see the
Sacramento Superior Court Guide to the Procedures for Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs.
Any administrative record must be lodged with the assigned department.
Date: 02/16/2021
.
d /s/ I. '.Ronw
S1gne :_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
I. Romo, Deputy Clerk
Notice of Case Assignment
CV\E-181 (Rev 12 16 2012)
Page 1 of!
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
Superior Court of CaUfornia, County of Sacramento
720 Ninth Street
Sacramento, GA 95814-1311
PAYMENT RECEIPT
Receipt#: 1063748
Cl~rk 1D: iromo2
34-2021-80003594-CU-WM-GOS
Transaction No: 2235947
194- Complatnt or other 1~1 paper
Transaction Date: 02/16/2021
t
$43MO
Transaction Time: 1'1:54:57 AM
$435,D0
$435.00
Sales Tax:
$0.00
Total:
$0.00
Total
$435,00 Rem.
$0,00
Bal:
Check Number'5): 113643
Check:
$435.00
Total Amount-Tendered:
•$435.00
Change Due:
$0.00
Balance:
$0.00
ORIGINAL
Page: 1