Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02407/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02407-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

CHRIS LUSBY TAYLOR, NANCY A.

PEPPLE-GONSAVLES, GARY KESSELMAN,

SUSAN SWINTON, DAWN E. STRUCK,

and WILLIAM J. PALMER, as

taxpayers, and on behalf of

themselves and other persons

similarly situated,

NO. CIV. S-01-2407 WBS GGH

Plaintiffs,

v.

ORDER

JOHN CHIANG, in his capacity

as CONTROLLER OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, and STEVE WESTLY, 

individually,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

The court heard plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary

restraining order and application for an order to show cause re

contempt on August 20, 2007. Plaintiffs have presented nothing

to persuade the court that the existing preliminary injunction is

insufficient or that defendants should be adjudged in contempt.

Case 2:01-cv-02407-JAM-GGH Document 107 Filed 08/21/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Plaintiffs’ suggestion that the Controller is

continuing to accept unclaimed property is based on a misreading

of the Controller’s records. The “date received” refers the date

the Controller received the invoice for services rendered by

contractors. The date the Controller received the property is

listed as the “delivery date.” According to the submitted

records, the delivery date of all stock or cash from Affiliated

Computer Services (“ACS”) was before the date of the preliminary

injunction.

The fact that the Controller entered into a contract

with ACS to collect property under the California Unclaimed

Property Law (“UCL”) prior to the preliminary injunction is not

evidence that ACS has continued to receive and/or hold property

for the State in violation of the injunction. The uncontroverted

declarations of Robert Huarte and Jeffrey Brownfield establish

that the State has not accepted any property that would otherwise

be subject to escheat after May 31, 2007. 

The existing preliminary injunction, which extends to

all agents of the Controller, is sufficient to enjoin ACS from

accepting or taking title to or possession of any property

pursuant to the UCL. If ACS continues to take custody of or

title to property on behalf of the Controller or the State of

California, as plaintiffs suggest, plaintiffs have not yet

presented any evidence to show that is happening.

Plaintiffs’ suggestion that the Controller’s employees

are altering records is based on an intra-office email on August

3, 2007. As explained in defendants’ opposition to the motion,

that email is simply a request to put together information in

Case 2:01-cv-02407-JAM-GGH Document 107 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

response to an audit ordered by the Controller himself. All of

the original records from which that information will be compiled

remain on the Controller’s mainframe computer.

Finally, plaintiffs’ complaints regarding the

legislation being proposed by the Controller are premature. The

legislature has not yet acted on any proposals. The court must

wait until legislation has been enacted before ruling on its

constitutionality.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ application

for an order to show cause re contempt and motion for temporary

restraining order be, and the same hereby are, DENIED.

DATED: August 21, 2007

Case 2:01-cv-02407-JAM-GGH Document 107 Filed 08/21/07 Page 3 of 3