1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WILLIAM H. DAILEY, Esq.
Attorney at Law, Cal. Bar #125141
16161 Ventura Boulevard
Suite 748
Encino, CA 91436
(818) 377-4407
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Los Angeles Citizens for Safe Drinking Water,
Paul Borraccia, Douglas Cragoe, Michael Delaney,
Nancy Miller, David Morgan, Alan Simmons,
Clifford Stem and Howard O. Watts
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
|
LOS ANGELES CITIZENS FOR SAFE LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL, |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
Case No. BC207490 COMPLAINT FOR VALIDATION (CCP 860 et seq.) and INJUNCTIVE RELIEF |
COMES NOW the plaintiffs, and allege as follows:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
1. This court has jurisdiction over this case due to the citizenship of the defendants and because
the location of the injury to Plaintiffs is in this judicial district.
2. Plaintiff LOS ANGELES CITIZENS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER (hereinafter
"CITIZENS") at the time of the improper proceedings an unincorporated association located
in Los Angeles, California. CITIZENS has as their mission "to inspire the need to know the
true nature of fluoridation, and how it treads upon our freedom to choose and much more.
To provide published scientific and other literature to consumers, and encourage personal
awareness and research. To welcome open debate and insist upon full disclosure of all
information to the public. To hold that the civil rights of all people to choose what they
consume must not be violated by medical, dental and industrial politics. To keep the
determination that the truth will be realized, justice will be served, and that the people will
have the last word, as we come together to ban fluoridation in Los Angeles."
3. Los Angeles Citizens For Safe Drinking Water is an unincorporated association of
citizens concerned about the dangers of fluoride in the drinking water and the violations
of local, state and federal laws surrounding the approval of fluoridation in the Los
Angeles area. CITIZENS was formed to foster citizen involvement in municipal affairs
and protect the citizens from toxic wastes in their drinking water, to insure the integrity of
municipal government, and to preserve citizen rights in relationship to municipal
activities, including the rights of persons of racial and ethnic minorities, aged and
handicapped persons, low and moderate income persons, residential tenants and owners,
and small businesses and to enhance ethical standards in government.
4. Paul Borraccia, Douglas Cragoe, Michael Delaney, Nancy Miller, David Morgan, Alan
Simmons, Clifford Stem and Howard 0. Watts are residents of the City of Los Angeles,
County of Los Angeles, State of California. They sue in their capacities as officers and
members of CITIZENS. Plaintiffs are ratepayers in the County and City of Los Angeles
who pay for, are liable to pay for, and have paid water bills within one year last past to
the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles and are persons interested in the
matter which is the subject of this lawsuit.
5. Defendant City of Los Angeles (hereinafter "CITY"), is a municipal corporation
organized and existing as a charter city under the laws of the State of California and is the
agency responsible for approving and amending the Plan.
5. Defendant City is a political entities existing under the laws of the State of California and
are taxing agencies within the boundaries of the fluoridation project which is the subject
of this action.
7. Defendant DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER is the primary water supplier for
the City of Los Angeles (hereinafter "DWP"). DWP is the agency responsible for the
implementation of the fluoridation plan.
8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that defendants named herein
as "ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE MATTER OF THE FLUORIDATION OF
LOS ANGELES WATER" adopted and approved by the City Council on January 19,
1999, by the City Council and Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, the Validity of the
Fluoridation Plan, and any and all said matters or any other matters relating to or
encompassed within the Fluoridation Plan," are persons whose names are unknown to
plaintiffs at this time whose rights and interests will be conclusively determined in this
action pursuant to C.C.P. 860 et seq.
9. Plaintiffs are not currently aware of the identity of other defendants and thereby names them
as Does 1-20. Upon discovering their identity, Plaintiffs will name them as parties to this
complaint.
10. This judicial district is the proper venue for this action because the acts complained about
occurred in this district. Furthermore, defendants regularly do their business within this
district and reside within this district.
11. On or about October 8, 1995, California governor Pete Wilson signed into law AB 733.
This statute includes language stating that the cost of fluoridation should not be paid by
the ratepayers.
On November 8, 1995, a City Council meeting took place. At that meeting, a motion was
adopted calling for Defendant DWP to report by January 23, 1996 regarding the funding,
implementation schedule and health hazards for the fluoridation of Los Angeles drinking
water. DWP failed to submit reports by that deadline.
13. On October 26, 1998, the Chief Administrative Officer for the City of Los Angeles
approved a contract including the purchase of fluoride and recommends it for Council
approval.
14. On December 7, 1998, the chemical contract including the fluoride containing toxic
waste is sent to the CENR Committee for approval. This paperwork includes the first
mention of fluorosilicic acid, the fluoride containing toxic waste.
15. On December 15, 1998, the CENR Committee approved the DWP chemical contract and
submits the contract for a vote of the full Council.
16. On January 12, 1999, the chemical contract comes up for vote of the full City Council.
Fluoride is not mentioned on the agenda. Limited public input is allowed, but was
discouraged because of the lack of notice to the public.
17. On January 15, 1999, the issue of the missing safety reports is raised. These reports were
completed by DWP in December, 1997 but not made available to the Council until
January 15, 1999 and not available to the public until January 22, 1999, three days after
the final vote was taken and the chemical contract approved.
18. On January 19, 1999, a City Council meeting took place. At the meeting, the chemical
contract including the purchase of fluoride containing toxic waste was approved without
opportunity for informed and meaningful public commentary and without the opportunity
for informed and meaningful discussion by the City Council members. Therefore the
contract and its approval is invalid, in excess of the City's limited jurisdiction and in
abuse of the City's limited discretion and in violation of other applicable laws and said
Ordinance is therefore null, void, of no effect, and ultra vires of law. Defendants failed to
review necessary and relevant safety data, failed to allow for public commentary based
upon a full, disclosure of the safety data, acted in secret and behind closed doors in an
effort to avoid public commentary and discussion of the Fluoridation Plan, intentionally
hid the Fluoridation Plan inside a chemical purchase contract in an effort to avoid public
commentary and generally acted in violation of local, state and federal disclosure statutes,
the State and Federal Constitutions, and common decency. Finally, the cost of
fluoridation is being passed on to the ratepayers in contravention of the AB 733.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of Plaintiffs' Due Process and Equal Protection
Rights By All Plaintiffs Against Agency and County)
19. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 18 and incorporate said paragraphs herein by this reference.
20. Enactment of the Fluoride Plan will endanger the health, well-being and Constitutional
liberties of Plaintiffs and all residents within the Metropolitan Water District and the
County of Los Angeles.
21. By failing to provide relevant documents to the City Council and the public, and by
concealing the implementation of the Fluoride Plan, Defendants have failed to give
proper notice and violated due process requirements. Defendants failed to follow
statutory procedures with respect to the consideration of the Fluoride Plan and thereby
denied Plaintiffs notice of their right to representation, their right to influence decision
making, and their right to protest the passing of fluoridation costs onto the ratepayer in
direct violation of state law.
22. Defendants failed to perform their plain, clear and ministerial duty to weigh evidence and
base their findings and determinations for adoption of the Plan on a preponderance of
accurate evidence. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that this failure flowed from the
lack of evidence from Defendant DWP, from erroneous and misleading evidence and
information from DWP and other sources and the intention withholding of the Safety
Reports from the public until after the final vote of the City Council. This failure to
weigh the evidence violated Plaintiffs' due process rights because the factual findings of
the Defendants were not based on a weighing of all the evidence before it and therefore
Defendants denied Plaintiffs' rights to a full and fair hearing. The findings and plan were
adopted with a predetermined fraudulent intent to arrive at the predetermined result of
adoption, all without intending to listen to or investigate the matters to be decided.
Defendants based their decisions, determinations and findings on false evidence, minimal
evidence or no evidence even when confronted by a preponderance of evidence or the
clear weight -of the evidence contrary to the findings and determinations required by law.
This denial of a fair hearing also flowed from defendants' institutional predetermined
intent of approving the Fluoridation Plan without consideration of all the evidence and
contrary to state law.
23. Evidence presented at the hearing was manipulated by Defendants and their staff,
evidence was delayed and ignored with intent to deceive the decision makers and
otherwise improperly construed to deceive the decision makers and/or bias the
proceeding in favor of the Fluoridation Plan. Such actions were willfully designed to
procure an otherwise unsupportable result in favor of the Plan, were an abuse of
discretion and perpetrated in bad faith to the prejudice of Plaintiffs and other interested
persons rights to a fair hearing.
24. A clear weight of the evidence was provided to Defendants by Plaintiffs which
demonstrated that the evidence in favor of the Fluoridation Plan was misleading,
erroneous, out-dated and/or inaccurate. Such evidence demonstrated the lack of necessity
and clear inadvisability of the Fluoridation Plan. That evidence was manipulated and
withheld from the decision makers in violation of Plaintiffs' rights and with the intention
of biasing the proceedings in favor of adoption of the Plan.
25. Adoption of the Plan will have a disproportionate adverse impact on the elderly, the
handicapped, children, low income and moderate income persons, aliens and other such
persons in violation of State and Federal statutes prohibiting such discrimination. The
removal of fluoride from the drinking water is an expensive and continuous project that
many of those with disabilities or income disadvantages will not be able to afford.
26. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to
perform their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be
irreparably injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct
to the requirements of law.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Injunction To Restrain Illegal Expenditures and Waste of Public
Funds Pursuant to C.C.P. 526 By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
27. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs I through 25 and incorporate them herein by this reference.
28. Defendant City and DWP are presently expending, and will continue to expend, funds on,
and waste their funds and property on the Fluoridation Plan, unless restrained by an
injunction issued by this court.
29. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law to prevent the waste, illegal
expenditures, obligations, and the acts threatened, and Plaintiffs and their health will be
irreparably injured unless Defendants are restrained by an appropriate order of this Court.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate Pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants)
30. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 28 supra.
31. Defendants have failed to perform their plain, clear, and ministerial duty under law to
make accurate and reasoned findings based on a weighing of non-fraudulent evidence in
the record and to not adopt such findings based on evidence known to be false.
32. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to
perform their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be
irreparably injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct
to the requirements of law.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate Pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 by All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants)
33. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 31.
34. Defendants have failed to perform their plain, clear, and ministerial duty under law to
only adopt a Fluoridation plan by making concurrent and reasoned findings of fact and
not to adopt findings based on evidence known to be inadequate, misleading or false.
35. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to
perform their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be
irreparably injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct
to the requirements of law.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate Pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants)
36. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 34 supra.
37. Defendants have failed to perform their plain, clear and
ministerial duties under
California Constitution and U.S. Constitution Amendments 5 and
14 to refrain from
manipulation, fabrication of false evidence with knowledge of their falsity thereof,
distortion and suppression of accurate evidence before the County Board of Supervisors
and DWP all with an intention to deceive those bodies and to refrain from adding post
hoc and ex parte evidence into the record after formal close of the hearings on the Plan in
order to make the knowingly false findings based on such tainted evidence and
procedures conclusively presumed true in all subsequent proceedings, in violation of
plaintiffs' due process, equal protection and property rights,
38. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to
perform their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be
irreparably injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct
to the requirements of law.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate Pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants)
39. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporated by reference paragraphs I through 37, supra.
40. Defendants ha have failed to perform their plain, clear and ministerial duty under law to adopt
accurate and reasoned findings based on a weighing of accurate evidence that the cost of the
Fluoridation Plan would not be paid by the ratepayers and not to adopt such
findings based on evidence known by defendants to be false.
41. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to
perform their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be
irreparably injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct
to the requirements of law.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate Pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants)
42. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 38, supra.
43. Defendants have failed to perform their plain, clear and ministerial duty under law in that
they failed to review any safety studies regarding the toxic waste purchased for use in
fluoridating the water.
44. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to
perform their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be
irreparably injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct
to the requirements of the law.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate Pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants)
45. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 43, supra.
46. Defendants have failed to perform their plain, clear and ministerial duty under law to
properly address the payment of the Fluoridation Plan with means other than the
ratepayer as required by state law.
47. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to
perform their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be
irreparably injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct to the
requirements of the law.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate Pursuant To C.C.P. 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants)
48. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 46, supra.
49. Defendants have failed to perform their plain, clear and ministerial duty under law to
have public hearings on the Plan and not to adopt a fluoridation plan when the decision-
makers and the DWP's managerial employees responsible for preparation of the evidence
acted to procure adoption with a predetermined -fraudulent intent to arrive or cause a
predetermined result without intending to listen to or investigate the matters to be
decided. No public hearings were held. The safety studies were intentionally and
fraudulently withheld from the Council and the public until the chemical contract was
approved. This violates various procedural and open meeting laws applicable.
50. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to
perform their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be
irreparably injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct
to the requirements of law.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate Pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants)
51. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 49, supra.
52. Defendant DWP violated its plain, clear and ministerial duty under the Ralph M. Brown
Act open meeting law, Government Code 54950 et seq. by allowing and causing a
"legislative body" to take actions in secret and in violation of that statutory scheme.
Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to perform
their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be irreparably
injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct to the requirements
of law.
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Injunction Pursuant to C.C.P. 526 By All Plaintiffs Against
All Defendants)
53. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 52, supra.
54. The limited findings made by defendants are not supportable by accurate evidence; are
not sufficiently certain to enable judicial review; such findings were in bad faith based on
evidence known to be false and abused the limited discretion invested in defendants by
the California Legislature in violation of the requirements of C.C.P. 1094.5, California
Constitution Article 1, 7 and 19, U.S. Constitution Amendment V and XIV, and otherwise
violated plaintiffs' due process and equal protection rights.
55. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to
perform their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be
irreparably- injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct
to the requirements of law.
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate Pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 By All
Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
56. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 55, supra.
57. Defendants failed to provide any dose control over all fluoride exposure sources to
prevent overdose and poisoning. Fluoride is a known poison with questionable health
benefits.
58. Plaintiffs have no plain, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to
perform their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be
irreparably injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct
to the requirements of law.
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Injunction Pursuant to C.C.P. 526 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants)
59. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 58, supra.
60. Defendants' Fluoridation Plan is invidious discrimination against minorities, lower
income, the ill, the uninsured, children, elderly- and other disadvantaged persons in
violation of the California Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, state and federal anti-
discrimination statutes and otherwise violated plaintiffs' due process and equal protection
rights.
61. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to
perform their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be
irreparably injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct
to the requirements of law.
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate Pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants)
62. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 61, supra.
63. Defendants violated their plain, clear and ministerial duty under law when they failed to
review any scientific safety data regarding fluorosilicic acid. Fluorosilicic acid is a toxic
waste which includes numerous toxic chemicals listed in Proposition 65.
64. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to
perform their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be
irreparably injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct
to the requirements of law.
SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate Pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants)
65. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 64, supra.
66. Defendants violated their plain, clear and ministerial duty under law when they failed to
review any scientific safety data to prove that their Fluoridation Plan would not increase
dental fluorosis, cancers, sterility, skeletal fluorosis, hip fractures and other dangerous
conditions known to be caused by fluoride.
67. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to
perform their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be
irreparably injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct
to the requirements of law.
SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate Pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 By All
Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
68. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 67, supra.
69. Defendants' Fluoridation Plan is invidious discrimination in that no plan or budget has
been adopted to deliver fluoride free water to those requiring it. This constitutes state
enforced and involuntary drugging of the population in violation of the California
Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, state and federal anti-discrimination statutes and
otherwise violated plaintiffs' due process and equal protection rights.
70. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to
perform their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be
irreparably injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct
to the requirements of law.
EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate Pursuant. to C.C.P. 1085 By All
Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
71. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 70, supra.
72. Defendants violated their plain, clear and ministerial
duty under law when they failed to
evaluate the likelihood of fluoride causing brain damage and
lowering the intelligence
quotients of children. This likelihood has been demonstrated in scientific tests that were
insufficiently reviewed and/or ignored by the defendants.
73. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to
perform their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be
irreparably injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct
to the requirements of law.
NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate Pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 By All
Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
74. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 73, supra.
75. Defendants violated their plain, clear and ministerial duty under law when they failed to
give sufficient notice regarding the dangers of fluoridation, the toxic contents of
hydrofluorosalicic acid and the availability of less intrusive alternatives.
76. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to
perform their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be
irreparably injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct
to the requirements of law.
TWENTYTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate Pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 By All Plaintiffs
Against All Defendants)
77. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 76, supra.
78. Defendants violated their plain, clear and ministerial duty under law when they failed to
review and consider new medical and scientific safety data that contradicts that data
available to the legislature at the time of the passage of AB733.
79. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to
perform their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be
irreparably injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct
to the requirements of law.
TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate Pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 By All
Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
80. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 79, supra.
81. Defendants' Fluoridation Plan is a waste of rate payer's funds since sufficient and/or
excessive fluoride is already obtained from toothpaste, diet, water and other sources.
82. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to
perform their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be
irreparably injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct
to the requirements of law.
TWENTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate Pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 By All
Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
83. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 82, supra.
84. Defendants violated their plain, clear and ministerial duty under law when they failed to
evaluate the likelihood of fluoride causing brain damage and lowering the intelligence
quotients of children. This likelihood has been demonstrated in scientific tests that were
insufficiently reviewed and/or ignored by the defendants.
85. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, nor adequate remedy at law to require defendants to
perform their legal duties and/or refrain from threatened illegal acts, and plaintiffs will be
irreparably injured unless defendants are ordered by this Court to conform their conduct
to the requirements of law.
86. Plaintiff requests a jury trial on this matter.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against defendants for:
1. A permanent injunction against the fluoridation of the water supply of Los Angeles;
2. Compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000.00;
2. Special damages in the amount of $100,000.00;
3. Costs of suit;
4. Attorneys fees according to proof, and
5. Such further relief as the court may deem proper.
Date: March 1999
(attorney signature)
William H. Dailey
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Los Angeles Citizens for Safe Drinking Water,
Paul Borraccia, Douglas Cragoe, Michael Delaney,
Nancy Miller, David Morgan, Alan Simmons,
Clifford Stem, Howard O.Watts
I hereby state under penalty of perjury that, based on information
and belief, the foregoing is true
and correct.
(attorney signture)
Date: March 22, 1999