Alameda County Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice and ...

Indeed, Plaintiffs' Complaint and Memorandum are replete with factual allegations that,pursuant to SB 1137, only the courts may now place non-violent drug offenders in jail. It isaxiomatic that, to state a cause of action against defendants named in a complaint, one mustShow how that defendant is responsible for the damages alleged. (Hart v. County ofAlameda(1999) 76 Cal.App.4m 766-776).One of the fundamental requirements of a cause of action for a preliminary injunction isa showing that either existing or threatened irreparable harm caused by the named defendantsexist. (7978 Corporation v. Pitchess (1974) 41 Cal. App.3d 42) Indeed, Plaintiffs herein are notentitled to interim relief against County Defendants because they have never set forth factsclaiming immediate, actual or threatened harm to themselves as a result of actions by CountyDefendants. (Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 447-453) Instead, theyhave alleged that they may be harmed as a result of unnamed, non-violent drug offenders, whomay be sent to jail by the courts and, as a result, counties may have to expend greater taxrevenues. To support this contention, Plaintiffs rely upon declarations that cite experiences incounties other than Alameda County. (See Plaintiffs' Declarations to Complaint)While such declarations may support the potential likelihood that incarceration mayoccur in some jurisdictions, such contentions fail to state facts to support an action fordeclaratory relief against County Defendants. It is well settled that while a demurrer admits allmaterial and issuable facts properly pled, it does not admit contentions, deductions andconclusions of fact or law alleged therein. (Marin v. Jacuzzi (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 549-552,Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695-713) General statements, without supportingdetails or specifications, that complainant will be subject to great expense through the paymentof additional taxes by acts sought to be enjoined is not an adequate basis for relief on groundsof irreparable damages. (Cohen, supra, p. 454).In the instant case, Plaintiffs' allegations are wholly speculative; they cite no actual.pending, or threatened actions by County Defendants that may lead to the damages alleged.Prospective applications of statutes believed to be unconstitutional to Plaintiffs are not ripe foradjudication. (Golden Gate Sightseeing Tours v. City and County of San Francisco (1937) 21County Defendants' Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Complaint I Case No. RG06-278911 5