courthouse news servicefiles.courthousenews.com/2010/01/05/truckers.pdf · 2010. 1. 5. · created...

I

2aJ

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1t

t2

13

T4

15

T6

t7

18

I9

20

2T

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RAIL AND PORT TRUCKERS ASSOCIAffffI.[[iIRVINDER S. DHANDA, PRESIDENTLAKHBTR BHAMBRA. VICE PRESIDENTP.O. Box 22166Oakland CA.94607

I]f NHARDU.S

Telephone # (510)-575 -5222Tele Fax # 510-222-3437

F'I EO

^",,,,di;,i#iffijUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

''*;n18$"q\s\oF cA)

/s,o(

ffi..i;liat#oRTHERNDISTRICToFCALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO

L}, UV 60 92':ORTHERN CALIFORNIA RAIL AND

T TRUCKERS ASSOCIATION ANDPOP CESILIO; ALAS WENCESLAO;BERTO JOSE G; ALEMAN EDY;

MARVIN; ALFARO EDWIN W.;I MOHAMED; ALLOSA NOEL;VARENGA JOSE DIMAS: AMADOR

AEL; AMAYA ANTONIO; AMAYAYDEE; ARCHILA JAIRO; ARCHILA

LAS: ARDON ERICK: ARGUETACO: ARTIGA DIMAS ANTONIO:

TIGA JOSE ANGEL: ASSEFAW YONAS; AVALOS ARMANDO; AYALA OSCAR;YALA RENE D; AYON LUIS; ARGUELLO

ORGE; AADEL JAWID A.;VARENGA ruAN B.; AMUDA

HEED; ARGUELLO JORGE; BAHIARANJIT; BAzuLLAS DANILO; Chief Judge Hon: Walker

BYRON: BENAVIDES MIGUEL:RHE YOSIEF; tsHAMBRA LAI(HBIR;AMBRA HARIIT; BHINDER HARPAL;

DIA ALBERTO; BAINS KAMALVIR

,SI

Case No.:

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITIONFOR PERMANENT INJT]NCTION ANDCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYRELIEF; 42 U.S.C. $$1983-1988,28 U.S.C.$1343(a)(b), BREACH OF pONTRACT,BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST,DISCRIMINATION, FAILURE TOSUPERVISE, 18 U.S.C. $1962(b)(cxd), 18u.s.c. $1961(1Xs), 18 U.S.C. $1es1(bx2), Iu.s.c. s1341, 18 U.S.C. $1343, 18 U.S.C.18 U.S.C. $1512; IN THE CONTROL ANDMATNTENANCE OF 18 U.S.C. $1961(4)

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR PERMAI\ENT INruSICTION

P tt'

' l

\ : - /At-{ , '

\1i

www.courthousenews.com

Cour

thou

se N

ews S

ervic

e

http://www.courthousenews.com

5

6

7

; BRAICH PARAMJIT; BHELA;LVINDER SINGH;

HA; JAGDEV SINGH; C AND J;ENAS CARLOS; CAJINA HENRY;

LDERA EUSEBIO; CAMPOS FOLGAR;POS WALTE& CANAS JESUS;O JUAN; CAP LEOPOLDO;

ENAS LUIS; CARDONA CARLOS;RRANZA JESUS; CARRILLO JAIME;

ASTRO ADAN; CASTRO OSCAR;AUSEVIC SMAIL; CEBRERO JOGE L';

JOSE; CENTENO HUGO;AS RAMON; CHANG SAM JEED;

VEZ GUILLERMO: CHAYEZ MARIO; CHAVEZ RAFAEL; CHHIN MAO;

IANG SHEHONG; CONTRERAS FELIPE;RNEJO MANUEL; CORONADO

RANCISCO J.; CRUZ ROBERTO; CEJAE; CEJA RICHARD; CEJA RUDY;

A zuCHARD JR.; CHAVEZILLERMO; CHATHA TARSEN; CHENN YUAN; CATALAIN CESAR; CA

ELIN; COLEMAN ELAZER; CHAVEZESAR; CANIZALES JUAN; D'AMBROSIOAVID; DACUS-HENRY RON; DE JESUSRAEL; DHANDA IRVINDER; DIAZ

MANUEL; DIRAR JAIME; DOAN; DOAN NGITIA; HARWINDER S.

LAI; DURAN ELIAS; DHILLONASPREET; D'AMBROSIO DAVID; DOAN

C N.; DAO THANH; EDWARDS DAVID;WARDS DAVID ENCARNACION

TILLO; ENCARNACION DIMAS;ENECHULUUN SUKH; ESCALANTE

O A.; ESCALANTE VILMA;BAR BAWNER; ESCOBAR HECTOR;BAR ISRAEL; ESCOBAR JESUS;

JORGE; ESCOBAR JOSE;ruAN CARLOS; ESCOBAR

UCIO DE JESUS; ESCOBAR MANUEL;OBAR ROLANDO; ESPINOZA JULIO;

A AUGUSTO; ESTRADA ELISEO;HASSAN TARIG; FEIJOO ERWIN;

2 fPLAINTIFF'S oRIGINffiRMAIYENT INJUNCTION

9

l0

1 l

t2

l3

t4

l5

I6

17

18

t9

20

2T

22

23

24

25

26

27



EZ ANTONIO; FERNANDEZIAN; FERNANDEZ SAUL; FERRY TROY;GUEROA ALEJANDRO; FLORES DENIS;

RES HECTOR; FLORES RICARDO;RES RUBEN; FLOTA MANUEL JOSE;

ILLA HECTOR PATRICIO;ALDAMEZ, CARLOS; GAMA JOEL;AM.EZ EDGA& GAMUK SLAVA G

; GARCIA EDWIN; GARCIA MORACO; GARCIA NOLBERTO;

ESSESE ASFAW; GILL KAMAL; GOMEZ; GOMEZ EFRAIN; GOMEZ

UCIO JOSE ANTONIO;GOIvIEZ WILMER;CALVES LILI;

NZALEZ HECTOR WILLIAM;NZALEZ JUAN CARLOS;NZALEZ ruLIO CESAR; GONZALES

ILTON: GONZALES RAFAEL;WILLIAM: GONZALO

YORGA; GRAMAJO LUIS; GRANTUCH; GREITZ HECTOR; GUAMANNCISCO; GUARDADO ANTONIO;

UARDADO EFRAIN; GUEVARATO; GUIDOS MIGUEL;

UITIERREZ CESAR; GUITIERREZENES; GUZMAN CIRIACO; GUZMAN: GUZMAN SANTOS

ALYUK SLAVA & VEN; GILL JAGJIT;CESAR GREWAL

RWINDER S.; GREWAL SARDEEP S.;CIA RAMON; HADERA YONAS;

ARON; HAILE GIRMAI; HAMIDMED SHARECF; HAYT;

QUEZ MODESTO ALBERTO;ERNANDEZ DENIS; HERNANDEZ JOSE;ERNANDEZ RICARDO; HERRERA

O A.; HIDALGO JOSE E.; HOCHOALAUDIO; HURTADO DOUGLAS; HUYNH

QUANG; IRAHETA MIGUEL;AIME PEDRO; JIMENEZ JUAN; JOFRE

; JORDAN CARLOS; ruAREZMUNDO; ruAREZ EDMUNDO JR.;AREZ FERNANDO; JUAREZ

RANCISCO; JUAREZ GUSTAVO; JUAREZ

3PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR PERMANENT INJTJNCTION



Y; JUAREZ HERIBERTO;AREZ HERIBERTO JR.; ruAREZ JAIME;AREZ JESUS; JUAREZ ruAN PABLO;AREZ MARVIN; ruAREZ MATEO;AREZ SERGIO; ruAREZ HENRY;

BOJ SUNIL; I(ARIC; KEMP JAMES;IQ AHMAD I(ABIR; KHAN

LLEN MIKE; KLUG JUSTIN; KULEY;SATISH; LAM AUGUSTO; LE ICH;

EMUS ANDRES A.; LEMUS RICARDO;A JAVIER M; LINARES ERIK;

ARES GUDY A.; LINARES JORGE;ARES ROQUE; LINARES ROLANDO;

ALFREDO ; LOPEZ ED GARDO ;ISMAEL; LOPEZ WILLIAM; LUUN

ERDENECHU; LOPEZ GREGORIO;YONG JIAN; LOPEZ JOSE;

ADRIGALES DANILO; MAGANAA.; MAGAilIA JAIME A; MAGAN

RGE A.; MAGANA JULIO C;DONADO JESUS; MAND SARWAN;

ARES EDDY: MARIANOUREEN; MARMOL CARLOS;

OQUIN MARVIN; MARTINEZISEO; MARTINEZ ERNESTO;

TINEZ GILBERTO A. ; MARTINEZEN: MARTINEZ MANUEL;

TINEZ MILTON R.;TINEZ OSCAR; MARTINEZ

CARDO; MATIAS MARCELINO;S; MBUGUA DANIEL;

EYASU; MEJIA DAVID; MEJIAAAC; MEIJA LUIS G.; MEIJA MANUEL;

EZ FLORENTINO; MELENDEZY; MENDAZ MANUEL; MENDEZ

LIO C.; MENESES MARIO; MENGESHA; MENGOVAR JOSE LUIS;

CADO WILLIAM; MERESCO MARIN;OHAMED; MOLINA RODRIGO A.;

OY ALES; MONTALBO JOE G.;INOS FERNANDO; MOORE

VE; MORENO ALEJANDRO;DOZA FOSEFINO ; MANN HARDEEP;

OHAMED WALIED; MARTINEZ S AC;

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION



1

2

aJ

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1t

t2

l3

l4

15

t6

t7

18

t9

20

2 l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ENECES MARIO; NARAYAN KISEENEO: NAVARETTE ROBERTO A.;AVICHOQUE J. MARIO; NAVICHOQUERGE; NGUYEN HIEU VA]T{; NGUYEN

OANG U; NOLBERTO ; NAVARRETEOBERTO; NAHOM BERBEK; OBANDO

A: OCHOA CLAUDIO RAMON; OCHOAERMAN; OJLA BHUPINDER; ORTEGA

SMAEL; OSBORNE DELL; OVIEDOVARO; OVIEDO JUAN;

VIEDO WILLIAM; OBANDO ADA;ARRA CESAR; PENG GAO KUN (KEVIN);

ROGER; PERDOMO EDWIN;JUBAL; PEREZ ANGEL; PEREZ

RAIN ANGEL; PEREZ FELIPE; PEREZISCO; PEREZ LUIS; PEREZ LUIS O.;

EREZ RICARDO; PEREZ VICTOR;ERLERA JESUS; PINTO DOUGLAS;

TERO RAUL; POGGIO MARVEN;CE MARTIN J.; POPAL YAMA;

RRAS MANUEL; PORTILLO ARTURO;RTILLO CARLOS; PORTILLO JUAN;

M CHAND; PUAC BARTOLO; PALMA; PANACH SARVJEET S.; PADDA

INDER S.; PHAM LOI H.; PONCETIN; QUALLS PAIL; QUINTANILLO

S E.; RAMIREZ JOSE MAUNCIO;OCTAVIO; RAMUS RAUL;

GUILLERMO; REAL RICHIE; REYESLO; RIDDIE SCOTT; RIOS RAUL; RIVRIO; RIVERA DEMAR; RIVERA ERICK;ERA WILLIAM; ROBLES GIL

CARDO; RODRIGUEZ JUAN A.;OMERO CONCEPCION; ROMEROANIEL; RODONI DON; RUBEN ; RUZ

CISCO; RUIZ JESUSUIZ ruAN MANUEL; R ROLANDO;

ERA RUBEN; RAI IKONKAR S.;ERA LUIS; RTVERA JORGE;

VAL SALVADOR; SANTO WALDO;LUIS; SANCHEZ ALEX

ANLEY; SANCHEZ JOSE; SUAZO JULIO;CHEZ SANTIAGO; SANCHEZ ERWIN;

HEZ CARLOS; SANCHEZ DIEGO;

5PLAINTIFF's oRIGINAMRMANENT INJIIft CTION



I

2

aJ

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

11

t2

l3

t4

l5

I6

t7

t8

r9

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CHEZ JOSE JORGE; SOLANOALTER A.; SAMAYOA ROBEN; SEGATT

UIS; SERRANO ALFREDO; SAM SARBJITANTO WALDO; SARRIA JOSE; SARAVIA

IS A.; SARAVIA AGGEO; SEBREROORGE; SUPAPO ERNESTO; SIBHATUIMON; SIMMONS RONNIE; SINGH

ANDEEP; SINGH JASWANTI; SINGHARTAP; SINGH BII(RAM; SINGH

INDER; SINGH NARINDER; SINGHINDER SINGH UPKAR; SINGH

A; SINGH GURINDER SINGHDER; SINGH JASVIR; SINGH

EEP; SINGH TAKHARK; SINGHALWINDER; SINGH TASWANT; SINGH

ER; SINGH BAHADUR; SNGHAzuINDER; SINGH JAGWINDER; SINGH

VINDER PLAHA; SINGH BALWINGER;INGH HARPREET; SINGH KULDEEP;

H TEJINDER; SHARMA MANOJ;IS LEANDRO; SINGH HARVINDER;

IDAL SUKHWANT S.; SOLIS LUIS;GERINO MARVIN; TORRES HEzuBERTO; TSANG TAK WING; THIANAVJINDER; TESFAMARIAM ASMEROM;

AN JOSE M.; THIND JOGINDER; THARAKHOFF; TIGRE ESTEBAN; URGUETA

O TULIO; UPPAL FIARDEEP; UMANE LUIS; UMANA PRUDENCO;

ASQUEZ CARLOS A.; VASQUEZRTIN; VANEGAS HERNALDO;

ILLANUEVA CHRISTIAN; VILLANUEVAGE; VEGA MANUEL; VALLADAREZ

:ARLOS; VALLADAREZ SANTOS; VERDIUKHDEV; VAN NGUYEN HIEU;ELASQUEZ JAIRO; VARGAS EDMUNDO;

A MANUEL; WELDEIDO KIBREAB;SS DAVID; WILLIAM HECTOR;

BIULLAH AMINYAR;ZAYADHAMMAD ; ZIJ AD ALIBASIC;

Plaintiffs,vs.

ATE OF CALIFORNIA by and throughOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION



1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

11

t2

13

l4

l5

16

I7

18

l9

20

2 l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VERNOR OF THE STATE OFFORNIA, and the CALIFORNIA AIR

CES BOARD, PORT OF OAKLANDDOES 1 THROUGH IOO,

Defendants,

TO: THE HONORABLE COURT ANd TO THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE NORTHERN

DISTRICT COURT OF CALIFONRIA:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RAIL ANd PORT TRUCKERS ASSOCIATION

(hereinafter, NCRPTA; Plaintiffs) is comprised of minority independent owner-operators

(truck drivers) who by implementation of the Califomia Air Resources Board Drayage Truck

Rule will be literally "unemployed by government mandate", a concept unheard of in our

entire nation's history. The approximately 1,200 small business owners service the Ports and

Rails of Stockton, Oakland, San Francisco, Hueneme, Redwood City, Crockett, Pittsburgh,

Sacramento, Concord, Richmond, Los Angeles, Concord, Sacramento, Long deach, Humboldt

Bay, Sand Diego, the State of California, as well as regions throughout our great nation. Our

sister association, the NATIONAL PORT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION (hereinafter, NPDA)

represents an additional 5,500 to 6,000 owner-operators servicing the Ports of Los Angeles,

Long Beach, San Pedro and who will similarly forced from servicing the port 4reas.

As representatives of these small business owners, we are requesting that the

DISTRICT COURT consider and apply the Federal Aviation Administration Act, the

Commerce Clause, the Sherman Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, Consumer Protection Act, and

the Civil Rights Act to this pending action due to the unreasonable and inhumane hardships

the Air Resources Board rules will impose, not only on these owner operatot, but the entire

state of Califomia and our nation througlr the inevitable "domino effecf'.

Independent truckers have witnessed how Truck Carriers have been allowed to

7PLAINTIFF' S oRIGINAMRMANENT INJUNCTION

t.



1

2

J

4

)

6

7

8

9

t0

11

12

l3

t4

l5

t6

t7

18

t9

20

2 l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

monopolize the trucking business at the Rails and ports and to monopolize the gant funds in

the clean truck program. We have also witnessed how the first wave of truck6rs have already

lost their jobs, homes and rights when the first ban of pre-1989 trucks went into effect in 2008'

Furthermore, the owner-operators of the Northern California Rail and Port Truckers

Association believe that Independent Truck Drivers have been singled out far beyond any

other port industry. The San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan 20$6 Port Related

Emissions study shows that Heavy Duty Vehicles (class 8 diesel trucks) contribute l0olo,

Cargo Handling Equipment,.lfYo; Harbor Craft, 11%; Ocean-going Vessels, 59%; and Rail

Locomotives,6%o. Unfairly, it is the latter four categories that will be allowed to continue to

operate their businesses.

In addition, the "Concession Agreemenf is defacto discrimination. Ttffs "Government

Action,' affects a minority group, the members of the Northern Califomia Drivers Association

in violation of Civil rights, pursuant to 42 USC $$1983-1988'

In addition, the policy and practice of the USEPA is to evaluate California's need to

meet compelling and extraordinary conditions in terms of California's motor vghicle emissions

program as a whole. In this respect, the USEPA was already aware of California's continuing

need for this program.

The Northern California Rail and Port Truckers Association believe that the new Port

and Rail Regulations also violate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

This acti|n is against defendants as an enterprise pursuant to l8 U.S.0. $1961(a) and

the entities that are part of the enterprise pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $1961(3); and the defendant

persons pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $1961(3) who are associates of said enterprise; for substantive

violations of 18 u.s.c. $1962OXcXd), l8 U.S.C. $1961(lx5) from June 30, 2009 to

"effective date, RICO enterprise" (Racketeering injuries pursuant to the meanfrg of l8 U.S.C.

g196l(5) beginning September 2009 and continuing through the present day, with no

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR PERMANENT INJIJNCTION



I

2aJ

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

1 l

12

13

l4

l5

l6

t7

18

l9

20

2 l

determinable completion date. Defendants published false/untrue statements in the newspapersf

and on the Intemet; and by using the United States Postal Service in violatiori of federal mail

fraud statutes found in l8 U.S.C. Chapter 63 to submit false statements to plaintiffs and other

Governmental entities, violating the Federal and State constitutions. Defendants and each of

them have submitted false/untrue statements to the plaintiffs direct violation of F'R'C.P'

$100r . f

Defendants and each of them operating a scheme to defraud plaintifB by 'pushing

plaintiffs' out of small businesses, defendants and each of them has intent to gain profit from

the Federal government, and keeping the Federal grant away from plaintiffs.

California's request, under $209(b) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. $7543(b), for a

waiver of federal preemption to allow California to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from

motor vehicles. This agency action was announced on July 8, 2009 (See Califomia State

Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Notice of Decision Granting a Waiver of Clean

Air Act Preemption for California's 2009 and subsequent Model Year Greenhouse Gas

Emissions'standards for New Motor Vehicles; 74 Fed. Reg. 32,744 (July 8, 2009). Copy

attached as Exhibit "A").t

AIVIENDMENT TO THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO F.R.C._P. $ls

Plaintiff requests for leave to amend this complaint pursuant to F.R.C.P. $15.

PLAINTIFFS' STA\DING TO SUE

The "supremecy Clause", IJ.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, provides a plaintif(s)with a cause

lUnder the proposed program, which covers model years 2012 through 2016, automobile mapufacturers would be

able to build a single, liglrt-duty naiional fleet that satisfies all federal requirements as we ll as the standArds of California and

other states. ttre piopos-O program includes miles per gallon requirements under NHTSA's Corporate Average Fuel Economy

standards (Ca$) p.ogtam ina tft. first-ever nitional emissions standards under EPA's greenhouse gas program. The

collaboration offediraiagencies for this proposal also allows for clearer rules for all automakers, instead ofthree standards(DOT, EPA and a State standard).

22

23

24

25

26

27 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR PERMANENT INJIJNCTION



I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

il

12

13

t4

15

16

I7

18

19

20

2 l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of action to seek injunctive relief from.allegedly preempted state action ('Se1 Shaw v' Delta

Airlines, 463 U.S. 85, 96 N.14 (1983) ('A plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief from state

regulation, on the ground that such regulation is pre-empted by a federal statute which, by

virtue of the Supremecy Clause of the Constitution, must prevail, thus presents a federal

question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. $1331 to resolve." 6ee

also, Indep. Living Ctr. Of S. Cal., Inc., v Shewry, No. 08-56061, 2008 Wl- 4ZZ+g17, at *13

(9" Cir. Sept. 17,2008)).

The Constitutional standing requirement has three elements: First, the plaintiff must

have suffered an injury in fact-an invasion of a legally protected interest which is: (a), ioncrete

and particularized; and (b), actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetic{. Second, there

must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of the injury has

to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the

independent action of some third party not before the court. Third, it must be likely, as

opposed to to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision

VENUE

The venue of this action is proper in a Northern District Court of California under the

28 U.S.C. $1331 and 28 USC $1343(aXb). which provides that an action for injunctive relief

under the Act shall be brought in a Northern District of California in which any part of the

plaintiff s Original petition for Permanent lnjunction being filed to challenge pe unlawful act

occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur.

CAUSE OF ACTION

Plaintiffs allege that constitutional rights and privileges have been liolated, as well

as Civil, Legal and Fundamental rights, by the above-named defendants. Plaintiffs'

constitutional rights of due process, as well as violations of the Sixth Amendment to the

10PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINMRMANENT INJUNCTION



r lI

a 1-

aJ

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

l3

t4

15

T6

t7

18

l9

20

2T

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Federal constitution have been committed'

GLAIM: Plaintiffs allege that the following Federal Statutes have bgen violated: 18

u.s.c. $1962(b)(cxd), 18 U.S.C. $1961(lX5), 18 U.S.C.$I951, 18 U.S.C. $19s1(b)(2), l8

u.s.c. $1341, 18 u.s.c. $1341, 18 U.S.C. $1343, 18 U.S.C. $2, 18 u.s.c. $1512 in the

Control and Maintenance of 18 U.S.C. $1961(4).

CLAIM: plaintiffs allege that the following F.R.C.P. has been violated by above

defendants 18 usc $$1001, 241,242 and 18 U.s.c. $2071; concealment.

REOUEST FOR RELIEF

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $1964(c), any person injured in his business or property by

reason of a violation of $1962 may sue therefore in any appropriate United ltates Court and

shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit; Including a reasonable

fees. Therefore, plaintiffs claim(s) the recovery of loss of business, respect in community,

personal record, benefits and civil rights permiued pursuant to the constitution of the United

States.

Plaintiffs also requests the Court after hearing the evidence and if the defendants are

found guilty of the allegations to: Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $196a(a) the Court shall have

jwisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section l8 U.S.C. $1962 by issuing

appropriate orders against all defendants, to order dissolution of unlawful organized enterprise

by above named defendants.

That Court shall order respondents to produce and release the actual grants to the

plaintiff as it was studied by the defendants. f,

Alternatively, if the records are not immediately produce and grants not provided to the

plaintiffs', the court shall review in camera or in open court the documents and issue order to

show cause.

The Court shall order defendant and each of them to pay petitioner's reasonable fees

for investigation and other costs pursuant to C.C.C.P $1021.5; f

The Court shell issue an order setting out the rights of plaintiffs' that has been violated

pursuant to the Federal and State constitutions, that the defendants and each of them concert to

il

PLAINTIFF' S ORIGINAMRMANENT INJI]NCTION



I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

l l

12

13

t4

l5

t6

t7

l8

19

20

2 l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

deceive Justice and violated public trust'

For an order enjoining all defendants from engaging in any addition{unlawful act in

the pattem of fraudulent schemes described above'

FAILURE TO SUPERVISE(Against State of Caliro:nia@chwarzenegger, G.overnor of the

StateoOf califomia and the califomia Air Resources Board)

plaintiffs refer to and realleges each and every paragraphs incluJive above, and

incorporates said paragraphs by reference as though fully set forth herein.

Defendants and each of them violating Califomia the Corporations Code $25216(c)

provides, in relevant part, that no Corporations agent or employee shall neglect to review the

initial documents, before any employee discharge their duties in California in gontravention of

any rule prescribed by the Federal and State constitutions.

Defendants were required to exercise their diligent supervision over the activities of all

of their agents, employees before implementing the fraudulently submitted study of so-called

"Dr." Hien T. Tran.

Defendants, each of them, failed to provide adequate supervision of tfieir agents, and

employees' training. Defendants typically did not prepare or provide resource materials on

constitutional requirements for their agents to educate themselves on the constitutional

mandates before occupy their offices. Defendants typically did not prepare any disclosures or

written materials for their agents. Defendants typically did not ensure the infprmation agents

provided was true or false. Defendants' typically did not care about the constitutional

requirements, so defendants would not know if the documents were provided to any

department before process paycheck of the employees. But the defendants and each of them

prepare and trained their ofticials and employees to how to falsifr the documents, lie to the

public, the experts in lying and creating false documents, and defendants are $upporting them

in exchange unknown reason at this time.

t2PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION



I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

1 l

T2

l3

I4

15

t6

t7

l8

19

20

2 l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

By failing to provide adequate training and information on credentials' defendants

failed to adequately supervise their.employees in connection with their credentials to occupy

offiees, in violation of Corporations Code $2521.6(c) and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 10, $260'218'4'

The failure to adequately train employees directly resulted in violations of the constitutional

rights of plaintiffs and other citizens of the United States. Defendants and each of them are

making untruthful statements to the public of material information, because defendants have

no fear of the Federal and State constitutions. t

IqHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants in the amount

mentioned below and as follows:

O. For a permanent and preliminary injunction, enjoining defendants and their agents,

servants, and employees, and all persons acting under, in concert with, or for jt. from directly

or indirectly or in any other manner engaging in the conduct as above alleged in violation of

Corporations Code $25401 and/or $25216;

(ii). For an order that defendants pay to plaintiff, a civil penalty in the maximum sum of

$25,000 for each violation of Corporations Code $25401 and/or $25216;

(iii). For an order disgorging all profits and compensation obtained by deferfiants as a result

of its violations of Corporations Code $25401 and/or 525216;

(iv). For an order requiring defendants to make restitution to the United States Citizens have

been put of the business by Defendants unlawful acts by means

alleged hereinabove:

(v). For an order awarding damages to plaintiff, an amount sufficient to compensate

plaintiff for loss suffered as a result of defendants' violations of Corporations Code sections

25401 and/or 25216;

(vi). For plaintiffs cost of suit incurred herein; and

(vii). For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. f

.13PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR PERMAI\IENT INJUNCTION

of the unlawful conduct



I

2

5

4

)

6

7

8

9

10

l l

t2

13

t4

15

16

t7

l8

The study done by the CARB and its employee Mr. Hien Tran was false in all respects;

the study is incomplete and unreliable:

l9

20

2 l

22

23

24

25

26

27

(D. the CARB under estimated the coast of the plan by millions of dollars;

(iD. the CARB did not keep-up their promises to provide the funding to retrofit the

West Oakland's local trucks;

(iii). the cARB knew at the time they do not have the money to retrofit all local

trucks; f(iv). the CARB is fully aware of the fact that the bundles of the grant money has

been delivered by the CARB to the big companies, who they have some

relationship with in regard to the retrofit their own trucks;

(iv). the CARB is not welling to compromise their mistake, in other hand the CARB

is welling to unemployed the 1,200 small business owners; f.

(v). the CARB has breached their promises of grant to the owner operators who

have ..no part" to deliver any pollution or the Diesel PM to the West Oakland, there is prima

facie evidence that the one ship comes into the west Oakland delivers tons of diesel PM, the

West Oakland population will not be safer in 2010 then 2009, because the mgst local Port of

Oakland trucks has been change by the Owners or by the lease company.

(vi). the CARB had more money then it was needed to retrofit the local Port of

Oakland and within the Bay Area Trucks, but again the money has been delivered to the well-

known companies, to buy the new trucks and keep them in their yards, without any benefits to

the West Oakland.

THE CALIFORNIA (GHG'' REGULATION WAS GIU{NTED BYTHE IIEDERT{L GOVERNMENT FOR 2009 AI\D UP VEHICLES

14 +,PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAMRMANENT INJITNCTION



I

2

nJ

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 l

t2

l3

t4

t5

16

t7

18

I9

20

2 l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

t

Automakers that will be subject to the GHG regulation have alleged in court pleadings,

either directly or through their trade associations, that "...it is essential for manufacturers

subject to the rules like the AB 1493 regulations to obtain approval of their vehicle models

well before the relevant model-year begins." As the automakers correctly ofs.*., the 2009

model-year can begin as early as January 2008. The California legislation did not mention in

the waiver that the older trucks will be put out of business, as the waiver was granted by the

President Obama its was unclear of the impact on the small businesses.

REOUEST FOR PERMANENT INJT'NCTION

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in each and every

preceding paragraph of this petition.

Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter a permanent injunction against each of the Defendants,

ordering each Defendant to provide actual evidence of showing where the gtJnt money went,

and the numbers of the trucks in and around the Port of Oakland were done with grants, the

Court shall declare the study done by Hien T. Tran for the Air resource was a massive fraud

upon the trucking industry, as the evidence made part of the this petition, that Hien T. Tran

lied to the Board, and to the people of the California Republic. u.

Plaintiffs asks the Court to set its request for Permanent Injunction for hearing for a

full trial on the issues in Plaintiff s request for injunctive relief and, after the hearing, to issue a

permanent injunction against each of the Defendants, granting the relief set out above and all

other relief, both special and general, either at law or in equity to which Plaintiffs may bei

justly entitled, including but not limited to fees, expenses, and costs reatonlbly incurred in

obtaining permanent injunctive reliei including court costs, reasonable, expert witness fees,

and deposition fees.

WHEREFORE, four hundred fifty six plaintiffs demand:

15PLAINTIFF' S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR PERMAI\{ENT INJIJNCTION



I

2

aJ

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

l l

t2

13

t4

15

t6

t7

18

l9

20

2 l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

,.

That this court issue an order declaring that defendants STATE OF CALIFORNIA by

and through ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, and the CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, PORT OF OAKLAND,f

have unreasonably MISSTREATED plaintiffs, and unconsciously denied'plaintiffs grant

applications were filed timely.

That this court issue an order compelling defendants STATE OF CALIFORNIA by

and through ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, and the CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, PORT 9F OAKLAND,

to left the ban until the CARB has the grant money to retofit each and every truck within and

around the West Oakland as it was promised.

That this court retain jurisdiction over this action at least until the STATE OF

CALIFORNIA by and through ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ANd thE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES gOiRD, PORT OF

OAKLAND, decide plaintiffs applications and provide the grants to retrofit all local West

Oakland Trucks.

If these regulations are once again allowed to go into effect, the second wave of

Independent Truck Drivers will be denied the right to operate as a small busir-ress in the Port

and Rails of Stockton, Oakland, San Francisco, Hueneme, Redwood City, Crocket, Pittsburg,

Benicia, Richmond, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Humboldt Bay, Sand Diego, and the State of

Califomia.

For these reasons, Plaintiffs ask that Defendants be cited to appear and answer and that(.

Plaintiffs have judgment against the Defendants for injunctive relief; for fees, expenses, and

costs reasonably incurred in obtaining the injunctive relief; and for all other relief, both special

and general, either at law or in equity to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled, as set forth

more particularly above. Plaintiffs ask that this matter be set for a hearing as soon as possible.

t6PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR PERMANENT INJI]NCTION



I

2

aJ

4

)

6

7

8

9

l0

1 l

t2

13

l4

l5

16

t7

l8

r9

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

That the court grant such other and further relief as may be proper.

Dated: December 29, 2009

Respectfully Submitted,

IRVINDER S. DHANDA(President)N.C.R.A.P.T ASSOCIATION

(Vice President)N.C.R.A.P.T ASSOCIATION

t7PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAMRMAI\ENT INJT]NCTION

f


courthouse news servicefiles.courthousenews.com/2010/01/05/truckers.pdf · 2010. 1. 5. · created...

Documents