Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2019cv10645/767557/1
Timestamp: 2020-02-24 15:09:22
Document Index: 37855794

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 2750', '§ 1983', '§ 1988', '§ 1983', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 1983', '§ 12511', '§ 2750', '§ 2750', '§ 1983', '§ 2750', '§ 2750', '§ 2750', '§ 1983', '§ 2750', '§ 2750', '§ 2750', '§ 2750', '§ 2750', '§ 2750', '§ 2750', '§ 1983', '§ 2750', '§ 2750', '§ 1251', '§ 3600', '§ 2625', '§ 3303', '§ 246', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 2750', '§ 2201', '§ 1983', '§ 2750', '§ 1', '§ 1983', '§ 2750', '§ 1', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 2750', '§ 2750', '§ 1983', '§ 2750', '§ 2750', '§ 1983', '§ 2750', '§ 2750', '§ 1983', '§ 2750', '§ 2750', '§ 2750', '§ 1988', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-24965880 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiffs American Society of Journalists and Authors, Inc for American Society of Journalists and Authors, Inc., et al v. Xavier Becerra :: Justia Dockets & Filings
Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District American Society of Journalists and Authors, Inc., et al v. Xavier Becerra Filing 1
COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-24965880 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiffs American Society of Journalists and Authors, Inc., and National Press Photographers Association. (Attorney Caleb Randall Trotter added to party American Society of Journalists and Authors, Inc., and National Press Photographers Association(pty:pla))(Trotter, Caleb)
Case 2:19-cv-10645 Document 1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CALEB R. TROTTER, Cal. Bar No. 305195 Email: CTrotter@pacificlegal.org Pacific Legal Foundation 930 G Street Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 419-7111 Facsimile: (916) 419-7747 JAMES M. MANLEY, Ariz. Bar No. 031820* Email: JManley@pacificlegal.org Pacific Legal Foundation 3217 E. Shea Blvd. # 108 Phoenix, Arizona 85028 Telephone: (916) 419-7111 Facsimile: (916) 419-7747 *Pro Hac Vice Pending Attorneys for Plaintiffs American Society of Journalists and Authors, Inc., and National Press Photographers Association 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 WESTERN DIVISION 17 18 19 20 21 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF JOURNALISTS AND AUTHORS, INC., and NATIONAL PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs, 24 v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, 25 Defendant. 22 23 26 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:19-cv-10645 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 27 28 ______________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Violation of Federal Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief -1- Case No. 2:19-cv-10645 Case 2:19-cv-10645 Document 1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:2 1 On behalf of their members, Plaintiffs American Society of Journalists and 2 Authors (ASJA) and the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), by and 3 through their undersigned attorneys, file this Complaint against Defendant and 4 allege as follows: INTRODUCTION 5 6 1. This civil rights lawsuit seeks to vindicate the constitutional rights to 7 free speech, the press, and equal protection for the members of Plaintiffs American 8 Society of Journalists and Authors and the National Press Photographers 9 Association. 10 2. ASJA and the NPPA are two of the leading voices advocating for the 11 rights of independent contractor (freelance) writers and visual journalists in the 12 United States. 13 3. As a result of a recently enacted California law (AB 5, codified at Cal. 14 Labor Code § 2750.3, et seq.), the constitutional rights of ASJA’s and NPPA’s 15 members are impaired, threatening the livelihood of those who work as freelancers. 16 4. The government faces a heavy burden of justification when its 17 regulations single out the press. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota 18 Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 583 (1983). 19 5. In violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United 20 States Constitution, AB 5 singles out ASJA’s and NPPA’s members who are writers, 21 editors, still photographers, and visual journalists by drawing unconstitutional 22 content-based distinctions about who can freelance—limiting certain speakers to 35 23 submissions per client, per year, and precluding some freelancers from making video 24 recordings. 25 6. As a result, ASJA and NPPA seek prospective relief for their members 26 in the form of a declaration that the challenged provisions of AB 5 are invalid, 27 unenforceable, and void; a permanent and preliminary injunction against any further 28 enforcement of the challenged provisions; plus costs and reasonable attorney fees, ______________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Violation of Federal Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief -2- Case No. 2:19-cv-10645 Case 2:19-cv-10645 Document 1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:3 1 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. ASJA and NPPA do not seek money damages against 2 Defendant. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3 4 7. ASJA and NPPA bring this lawsuit on behalf of their members pursuant 5 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of rights secured by the First and Fourteenth 6 Amendments to the United States Constitution. 7 8. Jurisdiction over ASJA’s and NPPA’s claims for declaratory and 8 injunctive relief is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question), 1343 (civil 9 rights), and 2201–2202 (Declaratory Judgment Act). 10 9. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C § 1391(b) on the ground 11 that all or a substantial part of the acts giving rise to ASJA’s or NPPA’s claims 12 occurred in the Central District of California. PARTIES 13 14 Plaintiffs 15 10. ASJA was founded in 1948 and is the nation’s largest professional 16 organization of independent nonfiction writers. Its membership consists of freelance 17 writers of magazine articles, trade books, and many other forms of nonfiction 18 writing, each of whom has met exacting standards of professional achievement. 19 11. ASJA has approximately 120 members in California. 20 12. Chartered in 1946, NPPA is the nation’s leading professional 21 organization for visual journalists. Its membership includes visual journalists who 22 are still photographers, videographers, multimedia journalists, editors and students 23 from print, television, and electronic media. 24 13. NPPA has 536 members in California. 25 14. NPPA advocates in support of visual journalists’ First Amendment 26 rights to report on news and matters of public concern as well as protect the copyright 27 of their images. 28 15. The term “photojournalist” is used throughout this Complaint to track ______________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Violation of Federal Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief -3- Case No. 2:19-cv-10645 Case 2:19-cv-10645 Document 1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:4 1 with the language of AB 5, as well as the synonymous “visual journalist.” Within 2 the journalism profession, the term photojournalist means any visual journalist, 3 including news photographers, videographers, and multimedia journalists who shoot 4 either still or video images. 5 Defendant 6 16. Defendant Xavier Becerra is the Attorney General of California and the 7 chief law officer of the state. See Cal. Gov. Code § 12511. AB 5 grants Mr. Becerra 8 specific authority to enforce the provisions of AB 5 complained of in this action. 9 Cal. Labor Code § 2750.3(j). Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis 10 allege, that Mr. Becerra also has ultimate responsibility for enforcing AB 5. 11 Defendant is being sued in his official capacity, pursuant to Ex parte Young, 209 12 U.S. 123 (1908), for depriving Plaintiffs’ members of their First and Fourteenth 13 Amendment rights under color of state law by enforcing AB 5. 14 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS I LEGAL FRAMEWORK Dynamex ABC Test 15 16 17 18 19 20 17. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 18. California recently enacted Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5, codified at Cal. 21 Labor Code § 2750.3, et seq.). AB 5 codifies and expands the independent contractor 22 test established in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 23 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018). 24 19. Under Dynamex, independent contractors must be classified as 25 employees under certain California wage orders unless the hiring entity satisfies a 26 new three-part test: 27 28 (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for ______________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Violation of Federal Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief -4- Case No. 2:19-cv-10645 Case 2:19-cv-10645 Document 1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 the performance of the work and in fact, (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity. Id. at 964. See also Cal. Labor Code § 2750.3(a)(1). 20. Failure to prove any element of the Dynamex ABC test results in the independent contractor being classified as an employee. 21. The Dynamex ABC test overruled a prior multi-factor balancing test 9 that considered the economic realities of the employment relationship. See S. G. 10 Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989). 11 12 13 22. Under Borello, freelancers like Plaintiffs’ members represented here are classified as independent contractors and have been for decades. 23. Dynamex was limited to the “suffer or permit to work” standard in 14 California wage orders and “equivalent or overlapping non-wage order allegations 15 arising under the Labor Code.” Gonzales v. San Gabriel Transit, Inc., 2019 WL 16 4942213, *14 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2019). Wage orders govern issues like minimum 17 wage, overtime pay, meals, and lodging. Professionals engaged in “original and 18 creative” work, like Plaintiffs’ members, are largely exempt from wage orders, and 19 thus Dynamex had little direct effect on their work. AB 5 20 21 22 23 24. AB 5 applies the strict Dynamex ABC test to the entire Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and wage orders. Cal. Labor Code § 2750.3(a)(1). 25. AB 5’s expansion of the ABC test means that freelancers like the 24 writers, editors, photographers, and videographers who comprise Plaintiffs’ 25 memberships must be classified as employees of the publishers for which they 26 produce content because content creation is “the usual course of the hiring entity’s 27 business.” Cal. Labor Code § 2750.3(a)(1)(B). 28 26. AB 5 also contains a number of exemptions to the ABC test, including ______________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Violation of Federal Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief -5- Case No. 2:19-cv-10645 Case 2:19-cv-10645 Document 1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 6 of 17 Page ID #:6 1 people who work pursuant to “a contract for ‘professional services.’” Cal. Labor 2 Code § 2750.3(c)(1). These exempt professionals remain subject to the existing 3 Borello independent contractor test. 4 27. AB 5 defines “professional services” as those provided by marketers, 5 human resources administrators, travel agents, graphic designers, grant writers, fine 6 artists, IRS enrolled agents, payment processing agents through an independent sales 7 organization, estheticians, electrologists, manicurists, barbers, and cosmetologists. 8 Cal. Labor Code § 2750.3(c)(2)(B)(i)—(viii), (xi). 9 28. Still photographers, photojournalists, freelance writers, editors, and 10 newspaper cartoonists are also included in “professional services,” but with 11 important limitations: (1) these speaking professions are limited to 35 “content 12 submissions” per client, per year, Cal. Labor Code § 2750.3(c)(2)(B)(ix) and (x); 13 and (2) video is expressly excluded from the still photography and photojournalism 14 exemption. Cal. Labor Code § 2750.3(c)(2)(B)(ix). 15 16 17 18 19 29. AB 5 does not exclude audio recording from the definition of professional services. 30. The 35-submission cap in Cal. Labor Code § 2750.3(c)(2)(B)(ix) and (x) limits freelancers’ ability to record, sell, or publish audio content. 31. The 35-submission cap in Cal. Labor Code § 2750.3(c)(2)(B)(x) only 20 applies to “items or forms of content by a freelance journalist” that meet the other 21 requirements of § 2750.3(c)(2)(B)(x). 22 32. ASJA’s membership includes freelance writers and editors who are 23 covered under AB 5’s “professional services” exemption but subject to the limit of 24 35 content submissions per client, per year. 25 33. NPPA’s membership includes still photographers and photojournalists 26 who are covered under AB 5’s “professional services” exemption but subject to the 27 limit of 35 content submissions per client, per year. NPPA’s membership also 28 ______________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Violation of Federal Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief -6- Case No. 2:19-cv-10645 Case 2:19-cv-10645 Document 1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 7 of 17 Page ID #:7 1 includes videographers who are excluded from AB 5’s definition of “professional 2 services.” 3 34. AB 5 grants specific enforcement authority to Defendant “[i]n addition 4 to any other remedies available,” to bring an action for injunctive relief. Cal. Labor 5 Code § 2750.3(j). This new enforcement authority means that Plaintiffs’ members 6 who wish to work independently can still be forced to become employees due to 7 Defendant’s enforcement of AB 5. II AB 5 HARMS PLAINTIFFS’ MEMBERS BY SINGLING OUT FREELANCE JOURNALISTS FOR UNIQUE AND SIGNIFICANT BURDENS 8 9 10 11 35. 12 13 Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 36. 14 Classifying Plaintiffs’ members as employees rather than freelance 15 independent contractors brings significant new costs and disadvantages to the 16 members. For professionals engaged in “original and creative” work, AB 5 adds 17 costs their client-turned-employer will have to pay, such as unemployment taxes 1 , 18 workers’ compensation taxes 2 , state disability insurance 3 , paid family leave4 , and 19 sick leave.5 Some of these costs are borne by an employer, but they all make 20 Plaintiffs’ members’ work more costly—and thus less attractive—to the client- 21 turned-employer. The additional burden on Plaintiffs’ members’ ability to engage in 22 independent journalism is a direct result of their classification as employees under 23 AB 5’s “usual course of the hiring entity’s business” prong. Cal. Labor Code 24 § 2750.3(a)(1)(B). 25 1 26 2 27 28 Cal. Un. Ins. Code § 1251. Cal. Labor Code § 3600. 3 Cal. Un. Ins. Code § 2625. 4 Cal. Un. Ins. Code § 3303. 5 Cal. Labor Code § 246. ______________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Violation of Federal Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief -7- Case No. 2:19-cv-10645 Case 2:19-cv-10645 Document 1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 8 of 17 Page ID #:8 1 2 3 37. The threat of enforcement has already resulted in lost freelancing opportunities for Plaintiffs’ members. 38. In addition to these unavoidable costs of converting freelancers to 4 employees, Plaintiffs’ members who are forced to become employees because of AB 5 5 will also lose ownership of the copyright to their creative work and control of their 6 workload unless they are able to negotiate to retain that right. 7 39. Ownership of the copyright of their work is especially pressing for 8 NPPA’s members, who license their photographs and videos to their clients, but 9 often retain the copyright to such work, which they can then relicense for additional 10 income. Under the Copyright Act, the copyright in a work created by an independent 11 contractor vests with the creator. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 12 730, 737 (1989). However, the copyright in a work created by an employee is usually 13 owned by the employer, unless the employee is able to negotiate to retain that right. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 40. ASJA’s members similarly benefit substantially from the ability to republish work that they create as freelance independent contractors. 41. Freelance journalists who are forced to become employees due to AB 5 will lose the copyright to their work. 42. Control over their workload is also a primary concern for Plaintiffs’ members, and is what leads many of them to make the choice to work independently. 43. In a tumultuous industry that continues to lay off employees, Plaintiffs’ 21 members find safety in flexibility. Rather than being tied to a single employer, 22 Plaintiffs’ members are able to adapt their workload to their financial needs, balance 23 their work with their other responsibilities, and spread their workload across multiple 24 clients to minimize risk. 25 26 27 28 44. That flexibility even extends to business decisions, such as the choice to attend a conference or event. 45. In addition, Plaintiffs’ members can deduct business expenses on their federal taxes for numerous expenses, including professional memberships, ______________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Violation of Federal Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief -8- Case No. 2:19-cv-10645 Case 2:19-cv-10645 Document 1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 9 of 17 Page ID #:9 1 educational and networking conferences, travel, equipment, home offices, insurance, 2 and other expenses, which an employee is not able to deduct. 3 46. They are also able to maintain benefits like healthcare and retirement 4 accounts, regardless of the number of publishers they produce content for or the 5 frequency and quantity of their work. 6 47. Flexibility is even more important in the digital space which, unlike the 7 traditional print model, allows for a higher volume of submissions to a greater 8 variety of publications. 9 10 11 48. Losing the freedom to freelance would upend years-long careers of Plaintiffs’ members which are built on this freedom and flexibility. 49. AB 5 is especially threatening to groups that are not well-represented 12 among voices in the media like women, ethnic minorities, LGBT people, the 13 disabled, and the elderly, because members of these groups work more often as 14 freelancers rather than staff employees. 15 50. By enforcing content-based distinctions about who can freelance— 16 limiting certain speakers to 35 submissions per client, per year, and precluding some 17 freelancers from making video recordings—Defendant currently maintains and 18 actively enforces a set of laws, practices, policies, and procedures under color of 19 state law that deprive Plaintiffs’ members of their rights to free speech, free press, 20 and equal protection, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the 21 United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 51. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to compensate for the loss of 23 these fundamental freedoms and will suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction 24 restraining Defendant’s enforcement of the 35-submission limit and the video 25 recording restrictions. 26 52. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to prospective declaratory and 27 permanent injunctive relief against continued enforcement and maintenance of Cal. 28 Labor Code § 2750.3(c)(2)(B)(ix) and (x). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202. ______________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Violation of Federal Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief -9- Case No. 2:19-cv-10645 Case 2:19-cv-10645 Document 1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 10 of 17 Page ID #:10 LEGAL CLAIMS Count I: Equal Protection (Cal. Labor Code § 2750.3(c)(2)(B)(ix) and (x)) (Limit of 35 content submissions) 1 2 3 4 5 53. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 6 54. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 7 United States Constitution prohibits the government from drawing arbitrary 8 distinctions between similarly situated professionals. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, 9 § 1. 10 55. Granting a full exemption from AB 5 to speaking professionals who 11 engage in marketing, graphic design, grant writing, and fine arts, but subjecting 12 speaking professionals like Plaintiffs’ members who are still photographers, 13 photojournalists, freelance writers, and editors, to a limit of 35 content submissions 14 per publisher per year, creates an irrational and arbitrary distinction among speaking 15 professionals. 16 56. By enforcing the irrational and arbitrary distinction among speaking 17 professionals, Defendant, acting under color of state law, irrationally and arbitrarily 18 discriminates against Plaintiffs’ members in violation of their right to equal 19 protection of the laws. 20 57. Privileging marketers, graphic designers, grant writers, and fine artists 21 by providing those speaking professions with an exemption from AB 5, while 22 limiting still photographers, photojournalists, freelance writers, and editors to an 23 exemption of only 35 submissions per publisher per year, is not narrowly tailored to 24 any compelling government objective, nor is it rationally related to any legitimate 25 government objective. 26 58. Plaintiffs’ members who are still photographers, photojournalists, 27 freelance writers, and editors are similarly situated to speaking professionals not 28 subject to the 35-submission limit of AB 5. ______________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Violation of Federal Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 10 - Case No. 2:19-cv-10645 Case 2:19-cv-10645 Document 1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 11 of 17 Page ID #:11 1 59. Plaintiffs’ members will suffer substantial and ongoing harm from 2 being subject to Defendant’s enforcement of the 35-submission limit while other 3 similarly situated speaking professionals are not. 60. 4 Plaintiffs’ members will continue to suffer substantial and irreparable 5 harm unless the discrimination enshrined in AB 5’s selective and arbitrary 6 imposition of the 35-submission limit is declared unlawful and enjoined by this 7 Court. Count II: Equal Protection (Cal. Labor Code § 2750.3(c)(2)(B)(ix)) (Exclusion of videography) 8 9 10 61. 11 12 Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1–52 of this Complaint. 62. 13 The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 14 United States Constitution prohibits the government from drawing arbitrary 15 distinctions between similarly situated professionals. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, 16 § 1. 17 63. Permitting marketers, graphic designers, grant writers, and fine artists 18 to record video images, but excluding the recording of video images from the limited 19 exemption for photographers and photojournalists, creates an irrational and arbitrary 20 distinction among speaking professionals. 21 64. By enforcing the irrational and arbitrary distinction among speaking 22 professionals, Defendant, acting under color of state law, irrationally and arbitrarily 23 discriminates against Plaintiffs’ members in violation of their right to equal 24 protection of the laws. 25 65. Privileging marketers, graphic designers, grant writers, and fine artists 26 by permitting them to record video images and remain exempt from AB 5, while 27 providing no exemption to photographers and photojournalists who record video, is 28 not narrowly tailored to any compelling government objective, nor is it rationally ______________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Violation of Federal Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 11 - Case No. 2:19-cv-10645 Case 2:19-cv-10645 Document 1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 12 of 17 Page ID #:12 1 2 related to any legitimate government objective. 66. Exempting still photographers and photojournalists for up to 35 3 submissions of still photographs per publisher per year, but providing no exemption 4 to photographers and photojournalists who record video images, creates an irrational 5 and arbitrary distinction between those individuals and others who provide 6 professional services under AB5’s exemptions. 7 67. By enforcing the irrational and arbitrary distinction among 8 photographers and photojournalists, Defendant, acting under color of state law, 9 irrationally and arbitrarily discriminates against Plaintiffs’ members in violation of 10 11 their right to equal protection of the laws. 68. Privileging still photographers and photojournalists who submit still 12 photographs by allowing them to submit up to 35 submissions per publisher per year 13 while remaining exempt from AB 5, while providing no exemption to those 14 recording video, is not narrowly tailored to any compelling government objective, 15 nor is it rationally related to any legitimate government objective. 16 69. Plaintiffs’ members who are photographers and photojournalists that 17 record video are similarly situated to marketers, graphic designers, grant writers, and 18 fine artists who record video images. 19 70. Plaintiffs’ members who are photographers and photojournalists that 20 record video are similarly situated to those who are still photographers and 21 photojournalists that do not shoot video. 22 71. Plaintiffs’ members will suffer substantial and ongoing harm from 23 being subject to Defendant’s enforcement of the exclusion of video recordings by 24 photographers and photojournalists from AB 5’s exemptions. 25 72. Plaintiffs’ members will continue to suffer substantial and irreparable 26 harm unless the discrimination enshrined in AB 5’s selective and arbitrary 27 imposition of the exclusion of video recordings by photographers and 28 ______________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Violation of Federal Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 12 - Case No. 2:19-cv-10645 Case 2:19-cv-10645 Document 1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 13 of 17 Page ID #:13 1 photojournalists from AB 5’s exemptions is declared unlawful and enjoined by this 2 Court. Count III: First Amendment (Cal. Labor Code § 2750.3(c)(2)(B)(ix) and (x)) (Limit of 35 content submissions) 3 4 5 6 7 8 73. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1–52 of this Complaint. 74. Pursuant to Cal. Labor Code § 2750.3(c)(2)(B)(ix) and (x), Defendant, 9 acting under color of state law, limits AB 5’s exemption for “professional services” 10 as applied to speaking professionals who engage in still photography, 11 photojournalism, freelance writing, and editing to only 35 content submissions per 12 publisher per year. In contrast, AB 5 grants an exemption free from the 13 35-submission limit to speaking professionals who engage in marketing, graphic 14 design, grant writing, and fine arts. 15 75. The 35-submission limit applies to Plaintiffs’ members based on the 16 content of their speech—i.e., whether they write about or photograph a topic in a 17 manner that constitutes marketing versus a manner that constitutes journalistic 18 reporting, or whether images are graphic design versus still photography. 19 76. Limiting AB 5’s exemption for “professional services” as applied to 20 speaking professionals who engage in still photography, photojournalism, freelance 21 writing, and editing to only 35 content submissions per publisher per year, while 22 granting an exemption free from the 35-submission limit to speaking professionals 23 who engage in marketing, graphic design, grant writing, and fine arts is not narrowly 24 tailored to a compelling governmental interest. 25 77. Under the AB 5 scheme, journalistic speech is expressly disfavored. 26 78. By enforcing the 35-submission limit, Defendant, acting under color of 27 state law, unconstitutionally deprives Plaintiffs’ members of their freedom of speech 28 as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. ______________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Violation of Federal Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 13 - Case No. 2:19-cv-10645 Case 2:19-cv-10645 Document 1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 14 of 17 Page ID #:14 1 79. By enforcing the 35-submission limit, Defendant, acting under color of 2 state law, unconstitutionally burdens the press in violation of the First and 3 Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, because many of Plaintiffs’ 4 members are journalists. 5 6 7 80. Plaintiffs’ members will suffer substantial and ongoing harm from being subject to Defendant’s enforcement of the 35-submission limit. 81. Plaintiffs’ members will continue to suffer substantial and irreparable 8 harm unless the speech- and press-burdening 35-submission limit is declared 9 unlawful and enjoined by this Court. 10 Count IV: First Amendment (Cal. Labor Code § 2750.3(c)(2)(B)(ix)) (Exclusion of videography) 11 12 13 14 15 82. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1–52 of this Complaint. 83. Pursuant to Cal. Labor Code § 2750.3(c)(2)(B)(ix), Defendant, acting 16 under color of state law, excludes from AB 5’s exemption for “professional services” 17 the recording of video images by photographers and photojournalists. In contrast, 18 the recording of video images for marketing, graphic design, and fine arts is not 19 excluded. 20 84. The exclusion of video recording from the “professional services” 21 exemption applies to Plaintiffs’ members based on the content of their speech—i.e., 22 whether they record video to communicate news versus expression that is deemed 23 marketing. 24 85. Excluding video recording by photographers and photojournalists from 25 AB 5’s “professional services” exemption is not narrowly tailored to a compelling 26 government interest. 27 86. Under the AB 5 scheme, journalistic speech is expressly disfavored. 28 87. By enforcing the video recording exclusion for photographers and ______________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Violation of Federal Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 14 - Case No. 2:19-cv-10645 Case 2:19-cv-10645 Document 1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 15 of 17 Page ID #:15 1 photojournalists, Defendant, acting under color of state law, unconstitutionally 2 deprives Plaintiffs’ members of their freedom of speech as protected by the First and 3 Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 4 88. By enforcing the video recording exclusion for photographers and 5 photojournalists, Defendant, acting under color of state law, unconstitutionally 6 burdens the press in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. 7 Constitution, because many of Plaintiffs’ members are journalists. 8 9 10 11 89. Plaintiffs’ members will suffer substantial and ongoing harm from being subject to Defendant’s enforcement of the video recording exclusion for photographers and photojournalists. 90. Plaintiffs’ members will continue to suffer substantial and irreparable 12 harm unless the speech- and press-burdening video recording exclusion for 13 photographers and photojournalists is declared unlawful and enjoined by this Court. 14 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief: 16 1. Entry of a declaratory judgment that: 17 a. Limiting AB 5’s “professional services” exemption for still 18 photographers, photojournalists, freelance writers, editors, and newspaper 19 cartoonists to 35 submissions per publisher per year, as codified at Cal. Labor Code 20 § 2750.3(c)(2)(B)(ix) and (x), is unconstitutional, facially and as applied to 21 Plaintiffs’ members, to the extent that it deprives Plaintiffs’ members of equal 22 protection of the laws in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 23 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; 24 b. Excluding photographers and photojournalists who record video 25 images from AB 5’s “professional services” exemption, as codified at Cal. Labor 26 Code § 2750.3(c)(2)(B)(ix), is unconstitutional, facially and as applied to Plaintiffs’ 27 members, to the extent that it deprives Plaintiffs’ members of equal protection of the 28 ______________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Violation of Federal Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 15 - Case No. 2:19-cv-10645 Case 2:19-cv-10645 Document 1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 16 of 17 Page ID #:16 1 laws in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to 2 the U.S. Constitution; c. 3 Limiting AB 5’s “professional services” exemption for still 4 photographers, photojournalists, freelance writers, editors, and newspaper 5 cartoonists to 35 submissions per publisher per year, as codified at Cal. Labor Code 6 § 2750.3(c)(2)(B)(ix) and (x), is unconstitutional, facially and as applied to 7 Plaintiffs’ members, to the extent that it burdens protected speech and the press in 8 violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; d. 9 Excluding photographers and photojournalists who record video 10 images from AB 5’s “professional services” exemption, as codified at Cal. Labor 11 Code § 2750.3(c)(2)(B)(ix), is unconstitutional, facially and as applied to Plaintiffs’ 12 members, to the extent that it burdens protected speech and the press in violation of 13 the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; 2. 14 Entry of a permanent and preliminary injunction against Defendant, his 15 agents, representatives, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation 16 with him, from enforcing the 35-submission limit and video recording exclusion 17 codified at Cal. Labor Code § 2750.3(c)(2)(B)(ix) and (x), as well as any and all 18 implementing administrative rules and regulations, and the policies and practices by 19 which Defendant enforces these provisions; 3. 20 An award of Plaintiffs’ attorney fees, costs, and expenses in this action 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// ______________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Violation of Federal Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 16 - Case No. 2:19-cv-10645 Case 2:19-cv-10645 Document 1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 17 of 17 Page ID #:17 1 4. An award of any further legal and equitable relief as the Court may 2 deem just and proper. 3 DATED: December 17, 2019. Respectfully submitted, 4 5 By 6 7 /s/ Caleb R. Trotter CALEB R. TROTTER CALEB R. TROTTER (Cal. Bar No. 305195) Pacific Legal Foundation 930 G Street Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 419-7111 Facsimile: (916) 419-7747 Email: CTrotter@pacificlegal.org 8 9 10 11 12 13 JAMES M. MANLEY (Ariz. Bar No. 031820*) Pacific Legal Foundation 3241 E. Shea Blvd. #108 Phoenix, Arizona 85028 Telephone: (916) 419-7111 Facsimile: (916) 419-7747 Email: JManley@pacificlegal.org *Pro Hac Vice pending 14 15 16 17 18 19 Attorneys for Plaintiffs American Society of Journalists and Authors, Inc., and National Press Photographers Association 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ______________________________________________________________________________ Complaint for Violation of Federal Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 17 - Case No. 2:19-cv-10645