# Amicus Curiae Brief — Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0193%3A13

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1986
- **Citation:** 475 U.S. 41

## Text

No. 84-1360 ”

In the Supreme Court Q£the can. vs
United States| *'*'*”

.
|

OCTOBER TERM, 1984 WAR B® 1989
DER L. STEVAS,
THE CITY OF RENTON, et al., ar
ppellants,
Vv

PLAYTIME THEATERS, INC., a Washington
corporation, ef al.,

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE
CITY OF WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA
AND OTHER JOINING CALIFORNIA CITIES
IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS’ JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

GEORGE AGNOST K. DUANE LYDERS CARL K. NEWTON
City Attorney, City Attorney, City of Oxnard City Attorney, Cities of Downey
BURK E. DELVENTHAL SIDNEY MALECK and Manhattan Beach
Deputy City Attorney, City Attorney, City of El Monte ROBERT K. PARKIN
City of San Francisco FRANK R. MANZANO City Attorney, City of Long Beach
LELAND C. DOLLEY City Attorney, City of Glendale CHARLES R. REVLETT
City Attorney, Cities of Alhambra, DONALD F. MCLEAN City Attorney, City of Oceanside
El Segundo, and Lomita City Attorney, City of Lemon Grove WILLIAM B. RUDELL
RANDALL A. HAYS GLORIA F. MCLEAN City Attorney, City of Burbank
City Attorney, City of Redding City Attorney, City of Santee PETER M. THORSON
COLIN LENNARD GARY R. NETZER City Attorney, City of Azusa
City Attorney, Cities of Acting City Attorney, JOHN W. WITT
Camarillo and West Covina CLAUDE HILKER City Attorney, City of San Diego
Chief Assistant City Attorney,
City of Los Angeles
BEST, BEST & KRIEGER BURKE, WILLIAMS . RONALD M. STEIN
DALLAS HOLMES & SORENSEN City Attorney, City of Lodi

City Attorney, Cities of J. ROBERT FLANDRICK* 221 West Pine Street
Corona and Redlands City Attorney, Cities of Whittier, Lodi, California 95240

4200 Orange Street Baldwin Park, and Bell
Riverside, California 9250! 624 South Grand Avenue
lith Floor

Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 623-1900

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

*Counsel of Record

————_——————————e>=—=={={={xK[@[@eqec€_[{"{["na={[K[Tr—|]_"]_>]=_=—a>>T==x=[—yo—~>—>—>—>o=>>>>[—II—S-=-=l="l=_=_|=_[|=_[{={x{x{[S[==>—=—=
Westside Law Publishers Los Angeles, California (213) 477-0491 a

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ai intididndessccheccideancccnesssotavanes li
ID i vvicvccccuccsecdscrvncdernewscnsesus l
Ie CN PE incsncciccdnicsscccrcccsgececnencevscsss 2
Introduction And Summary Of Argument.............. 5
Argument

This Honorable Court Should Undertake To
Review The Determination Of The Ninth
Circuit In Playtime Theaters, Inc. v. Renton
Because The Lower Federal Courts Have
Effectively Emasculated This Courts’ Decision
In Young v. American Mini Theatres .............. 6

5 ER RSP ROM gee slr Wt Dirk SRE SAPS Rae SOP ea NOD? 10

I I ei Sion ccla sts daenlghcckarece cea en acin Al

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page

Alexander v. City of Minneapolis, 531 F.Supp.
1162 (D.Minn. 1982), aff'd, 698 F.2d 936 (8th
IRS ES SEC On 7

Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa, 28
Cal.3d 511, 620 P.2d 565, 169 Cal.Rptr. 904

ee ic gncedvenencces 3
Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 667 F.2d 659

TY 6
Basiardanes v. City of Galveston, 682 F.2d 1203

SET SEE I en 6

City of Whittier v. Walnut Properties, 149
Cal.App.3d 633, 197 Cal.Rptr. 127 (1983)......
AE idinesidasibubepruseetensatonicess 2, 4, 7

County of Sacramento v. Superior Court, 137
Cal.App.3d 448, 187 Cal.Rptr. 154 (1982)......

Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502 (1962)...... 8
E & B Enterprises v. City of University Park, 449

F.Supp. 695 (N.D.Tex. 1977)......................... 7
Ebel v. City of Corona, 698 F.2d 390 (9th Cir.

ee ak ciccadussnescinervececes 4,6
Ebel v. City of Corona, Nos. 84-5688, 85-5785 (9th

Cir. argument scheduled for Apr. 8, 1985) ........ 2
Ebel v. City of Garden Grove, 120 Cal.App.3d 399,

176 Cal.Rptr. 312 (1982)..........................e ee 7
Ensign Bickford Realty Corp. v. City Council, 68

Cal.App.3d 467, 137 Cal.Rptr. 304 (1977)......... 3

Entertainment Concepts, Inc. v. Maciejawski, 631
F.2d 497 (1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 919

EE ic hinauinkoestesdétetererssvscsses: 7

Fantasy Book Shop, Inc. v. City of Boston, 652
oo, cv evescpensuscosescncoscss 6

ill

Genusa v. City of Peoria, 619 F.2d 1203 (7th Cir.

RNS TE ee eo 6,8
Hill v. City of Manhattan Beach, 6 Cal.3d 279, 491
P.2d 369, 98 Cal.Rptr. 785 (1971) ................... 3
Keego Harbor v. City of Keego Harbor, 657 F.2d
seid ebiccedccdboakaicsetonene 6
Kuznich v. County of Santa Clara, 689 F.2d 1345
TERS SORES Oe ee ee nD 4, 6
Lydo Enterprises v. City of Las Vegas, 745 F.2d
SIE TSR ae 4

Northend Cinema, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 90
Wash.2d 709, 585 P.2d 1153 (1978), cert.

denied, 441 U.S. 946 (1979) ..................0 ccc eee. 5
Playtime Theaters, Inc. v. The City of Renton, 748

F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1984)................... 2, 4, 6, 8, 9
Pringle v. The City of Covina, 115 Cal.App.3d 151,

Bee NEE, BPO CODED cc cccccccsccccscccssrcseevesces 7
Purple Onion, Inc. v. Jackson, 511 F.Supp. 1207

iS RA SRO a aN 7

Strand Properties Corp. v. Municipal Court, 148
Cal.App.3d 882, 200 Cal.Rptr. 47 (1983).......
CEN EAT | SOPRA ea 2,4, 7,8
Tovar v. Billmeyer, 721 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1983),
cert. denied, _. U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 223, 83

EEE 4
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).......... 7
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. |

Cee nc cedbienssinndderevccses 3

Walnut Properties v. City Council of the City of
Long Beach, 100 Cal.App.3d 1018, 161
Cal.Rptr. 411, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 836
a le inalalcteecines 2,4,7

Walnut Properties, Inc. v. City of Whittier, Nos.
84-5755, 84-6087 (9th Cir. argued Feb. 8,
es cas icinenpphyeescateesaes 2,4

iV

Walnut Properties v. Long Beach, No. 81-942-TJH
(C.D.Cal. 1981), affd., No. 81-5732 (9th Cir.

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) ..................... 3
Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50

SPUD saci dicesinsacodes

ponkpomnaua ... 2, 4,5, 6, 8, 9, 10

Statutes and Rules
California Government Code

§§65300-65403 (Deering 1985)........ enon 4
§65850 (Deering 1985).............cc.cccccccceeeeeeeee. 3
§§65000-66403 (Deering 1985)................cc0006.- 3

Supreme Court Rule 36.4

No. 84-1360
In the Supreme Court of the
United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1984

THE CITY OF RENTON, et ai.,
Appellants,

v.
PLAYTIME THEATERS, INC., a Washington
corporation, ef al.,

Appellees.

BRIEF OF AMICi CURIAE
CITY OF WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA
AND OTHER JOINING CALIFORNIA CITIES
IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS’
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Amici curiae the City of Whittier et a/. adopt in full
the Statement of the Case made by Appellants, the City
of Renton, et al. (hereinafter “Renton”).

INTEREST OF THE AMICI

Amici curiae' are all cities located in the State of
California.2 Many of the 409 cities in California have
adopted and are enforcing zoning ordinances which
regulate the location of “adult” businesses as expressly
authorized by this Court in Young v. American Mini
Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 (1976), (hereinafter “Young”).3
Without action by this Court, the judgment of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeal in Playtime Theaters, Inc. v.
The City of Renton, 748 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1984) will
become a binding precedent emasculating the zoning
powers of these cities as described in Young, not only
as to adult theatres, but to all adult business.* Amici
submit that the judgment of the Ninth Circuit should
be reversed.

‘Appendix “A” hereto sets forth those California cities joining
in this Brief.

?Amici are represented by their respective authorized law officers
and as political subdivisions of the State of California are not
required to obtain consent of all parties for the filing of this Brief.
Sup.Ct.R. 36.4.

3See, e.g., City of Whittier v. Walnut Properties, 149 Cal.App.3d
633, 197 Cal.Rptr. 127 (1983); Strand Properties Corp. v. Municipal
Court, 148 Cal.App.3d 882, 200 Cal.Rptr. 47 (1983); County of
Sacramento v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App.3d 448, 187 Cal.Rptr.
154 (1982); Walnut Properties v. City Council of the City of Long
Beach, 100 Cal.App.3d 1018, 161 Cal.Rptr. 411 (1980). At least
two Amici, the City of Whittier and City of Corona, are involved
in cases similar to the instant matter which are pending on appeal
in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. Oral argument in Walnut
Properties, Inc. v. City of Whittier, Nos. 84-5755 and 84-6087,
took place on February 8, 1985; oral argument is scheduled in
Ebel v. City of Corona, Nos. 84-5688 and 84-5785, for April 8,
1985.

*J. Robert Flandrick, counsel of record for Amici, is an officer
of the City Attorneys’ Division of the League of California Cities.
As such, he has been advised that a number of cases which involve
California cities presenting similar issues to those raised in this
appeal are pending in State and Federal courts in California.

Regulation by zoning is a legitimate and vital power
of municipalities in California. See, Cal. Gov't Code
§§65000-66403 (Deering 1985); Hill v. City of Manhattan
Beach, 6 Cal.3d 279, 285, 491 P.2d 369, 372-73, 98
Cal.Rptr. 785, 788-89 (1971).

As this Honorable Court has noted, the exercise of
reserved police powers by a city,

“is not confined to elimination of filth,
stench, and unhealthy places. It is ample to
lay out zones where family values, youth values,
and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean
air make the area a sanctuary for people.”
Viliage of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1,
9 (1974).

This Honorable Court has long recognized that the
zoning power is essential to effective urban planning.
Although the exercise of such power is subject to judicial
review in a proper case, adoption of zoning regulations
is a legislative function. Dissatisfied citizens have the
availability of the normal democratic process to press
their objections to such legislative acts. Warth v. Seldin,
422 U.S. 490, 508 n.18 (1975).

In California, zoning is statutorily defined as a
legislative function. Cal. Gov’t Code §65850 (Deering
1985); Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa,
28 Cal.3d 511, 516-22, 620 P.2d 565, 568-71, 169
Cal.Rptr. 904, 907-10 (1980). As such, when enacting
a zoning ordinance a legislative body is not required
to make findings of fact as would be the case in a quasi-
judicial activity. Ensign Bickford Realty Corp. v. City
Council, 68 Cal.App.3d 467, 473, 137 Cal.Rptr. 304,
307 (1977).

Orderly planning is vital to California cities. Each
such city is required by statute to prepare a complete

General Plan regulating future growth of the city. Cal.
Gov't Code §§65300-65403 (Deering 1985). The Renton
opinion and other Ninth Circuit decisions’ have
frustrated this statutory planning process and have
effectively thwarted orderly urban growth by eliminating
the power of cities to impose reasonable zoning
regulations on First Amendment activities.®

Like Renton, many of the Amici are smaller cities
located in or adjacent to large metropolitan areas. As

5See, e.g., Lydo Enterprises v. City of Las Vegas, 745 F.2d 1211
(9th Cir. 1984); Tovar v. Billmeyer, 721 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1983);
Ebel v. City of Corona, 698 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1983); Kuznich
v. County of Santa Clara, 689 F.2d 1345 (9th Cir. 1982). California
courts, however, have upheld similar zoning ordinances regulating
adult businesses. See, City of Whittier v. Walnut Properties, 149
Cal.App.3d 633, 197 Cal.Rptr. 127 (1983); Strand Properties v.
Municipal Court, 148 Cal.App.3d 882, 200 Cal.Rptr. 47 (1983);
County of Sacramento v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App.3d 448,
187 Cal.Rptr. 154 (1982); Walnut Properties v. City Council of
the City of Long Beach, 100 Cal.App.3d 1018, 161 Cal.Rptr. 411,
cert. denied, 449 U.S. 836 (1980).

While Amici assert that the disregard of lower Federal courts
of this Court’s decision in Young is the most important issue in
this case, a subordinate issue is raised by the Ninth Circuit’s refusal
to abstain or stay proceedings in this case pending resolution of
a pending state action concerning the constitutionality of Renton’s
ordinance. Renton, 748 F.2d at 532-33. Because there is concurrent
jurisdiction in this area, Federal courts are often faced with this
issue. In California, on many occasions Federal courts have declined
to stay subsequently filed Federal cases to allow California courts
to proceed to hear such matters. See, e.g., Walnut Properties v.
City of Whittier, Nos. 84-5755 and 84-6087 (9th Cir. argued Feb.
8, 1985); City of Whittier v. Walnut, 149 Cal.App.3d 633, 197
Cal.Rptr. 127 (1983); Walnut Properties v. City Council of the
City of Long Beach, 100 Cal.App.3d 1018, 161 Cal.Rptr. 411, cert.
denied, 449 U.S. 836 (1980); Walnut Properties v. Long Beach,
No. 81-942-TJH (C.D.Cal. 1981), aff'd., No. 81-5732 (9th Cir. 1982).
Guidance by this Court is appropriate and is required to avoid
the waste of judicial time and the undermining of judicial integrity
occasioned by such multiple lawsuits.

a result of the growth of the adult business industry,
together with the adoption of zoning ordinances
regulating adult businesses in larger cities, many adult
businesses are relocating in these smaller adjacent cities.
This has been the experience in Renton and of cities
in California.

The City of Seattle, located adjacent to Renton,
enacted zoning ordinances regulating adult theatres
which were unanimously upheld by the Washington
Supreme Court. Northend Cinema, Inc. v. City of
Seattle, 90 Wash.2d 709, 585 P.2d 1153 (1978), cert.
denied, 441 U.S. 945 (1979). It was after that Court’s
decision that Renton considered and enacted its
ordinance regulating adult theatres in a manner similar
to that adopted by Seattle.

Cities and towzs across California (as represented by
Amici) believe it necessary that this Court consider the
appeal by Renton in order to reaffirm this Court’s
decision in Young, and to correct the trend in the Ninth
Circuit and other Circuits to limit cities’ zoning power
to control adult businesses.

INFRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has held that
Renton’s adult business reguiations violate the First
Amendment because Renton failed to independently
establish a substantial governmental interest in such
regulation, and the passage of the ordinance effected
an unlawful suppression of constitutionally protected
speech.

This case is deserving of a fuil review of this Honorable
Court because Renton should be permitted to rely upon
the experience of other cities for the factual foundation

supporting its regulation of adult businesses. Use of a
common pool of knowledge and experience is a
customary and appropriate legislative practice for any
city to engage in.

ARGUMENT

THIS HONORABLE COURT SHOULD
UNDERTAKE TO REVIEW THE DETERMI-
NATION OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN PLA Y-
TIME THEATERS, INC. V. RENTON
BECAUSE THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS
HAVE EFFECTIVELY EMASCULATED THIS
COURTS’ DECISION IN YOUNG V. AMERI-
CAN MINI THEATRES.

In Young, this Court upheld the City of Detroit’s
zoning ordinance which regulated the location of adult
theatres within the City. Justice Stewart, writing in
dissent, declared, “I can only interpret today’s decision
as an aberration.” Young, 427 U.S. at 87 (Stewart, J.,
dissenting). Nine years later, this prediction approaches
reality.

In the last nine years only one United States Court
of Appeal! decision has upheld an adult business zoning
ordinance.’ In most of these Federal cases the ordinances
in question were virtually identical to the ordinance
upheld by this Court in Young. Courts in the First,
Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Circuits have
systematically invalidated such zoning enactments,* thus

7Genusa v. City of Peoria, 619 F.2d 1203 (7th Cir. 1980).

8Ebel v. City of Corona, 698 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1983); Kuznich
v. County of Santa Clara, 689 F.2d 1345 (9th Cir. 1982); Basiardanes
v. City of Galveston, 682 F.2d 1203 (Sth Cir. 1982); Avalon Cinema
Corp. v. Thompson, 667 F.2d 659 (8th Cir. 1981); Keego Harbor
v. City of Keego Harbor, 657 F.2d 94 (6th Cir. 1981); Fantasy
Book Shop, Inc. v. City of Boston, 652 F.2d 1115 (Ist Cir. 1981);

thwarting the good-faith efforts by cities and towns to
accommodate their zoning interest and the First
Amendment rights at issue. This history demonstrates
that this Court’s decision in Young has been totally
emasculated by lower Federal courts.

Where the “O’Brien” test? is met, California State
courts, on the other hand, have had little difficulty in
upholding Young type ordinances enacted by California
cities. !°

In County of Sacramento v. Superior Court, 137
Cal.App.3d 448, 187 Cal.Rptr. 154 (1982), the California
Court stated:

“(The plaintiff] Goldie asserts that the
identical ordinance must be tested anew each
time it is enacted by a different governmental
entity by establishing the actual existence of
locale conditions which would justify it.
Goldie’s thesis would deny to lawmakers in one
locale the benefit of the wisdom and experience
of lawmakers in another community, no matter

Entertainment Concepts, Inc. v. Maciejawski, 631 F.2d 497 (1980),
cert. denied, 450 U.S. 919 (1981); E&B Enterprises v. City of
University Park, 449 F.Supp. 695 (N.D. Tex. 1977); Alexander
v. City of Minneapolis, 531 F.Supp. 1162 (D.Minn. 1982), affd.,
698 F.2d 936 (8th Cir. 1983); Purple Onion, Inc. v. Jackson, 511
F.Supp. 1207 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

9United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968).

City of Whittier v. Walnut Properties, 149 Cal.App.3d 683
(1983) 197 Cal.Rptr. 127; Strand Properties Corp. v. Municipal
Court, 148 Cal.App.3d 882, 200 Cal.Rptr. 47 (1983); County of
Sacramento v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App.3d 448 (1982), 187
Cal.Rptr. 154; Pringle v. The City of Covina, 115 Cal.App.3d 151,
171 Cal.Rptr. 251 (1982); Ebel v. City of Garden Grove, 120
Cal.App.3d 399, 176 Cal.Rptr. 312 (1982); Walnut Properties, Inc.
v. City Council of the City of Long Beach, 100 Cal.App.3d 1018,
161 Cal.Rptr. 411, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 836 (1980).

how similar the circumstances; it would, as it
were, require the reinvention of the wheel
countless times over when mere access to
common knowledge would render the
considerable effort involved unnecessary. In
dealing with closed booths in picture arcades,
lawmakers need not blink the obvious [sic].
It cannot seriously be maintained that patrons
of Sacramento County adult picture arcades
do not to some degree sufficient to justify
governmental concern share the proclivities of
their counterparts in Los Angeles and Phoenix.
Reasonable anticipation of such problems is
itself sufficient to justify the official reaction
embodied in chapter 9.87 of the Sacramento
County Code.” /d. at 455, 187 Cal.Rptr. at 158-
59 (citation and footnote omitted).!!

One major error which has often occurred in Federal
court opinions purporting to follow the Young decision
was made by the Court of Appeal in the instant case.
Unlike the California and Seventh Circuit cases discussed
above, the Court of Appeal held that Renton could not
rely on the experience of other towns and cities to justify
its zoning regulation.'? The panel in Renton analyzed
the Young opinion as follows:

'\'\Accord, Strand Properties Corp. v. Municipal Court, 148
Cal.App.3d 880, 887, 200 Cal.Rptr. 47, 49 (1984); Genusa v. City
of Peoria, 619 F.2d 1203, 1211 (7th Cir. 1980).

'2It is respectfully submitted that this Honorable Court sh. uld
note probable jurisdiction in this case to resolve the conflict between
the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Renton and the cases cited in footnote
11, supra, and the text accompanying said footnote. As the Court
stated in Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502, 513 (1962),
“To resolve and accommodate such diversities and conflicts is one
of the traditional functions of this Court.”

“The plurality in Young found that the record
disclosed a factual basis for the council’s
determinations, 427 U.S. at 71, and Justice
Powell cited ‘reports and affidavits from
sociologists and urban planning experts, as well
as some layman.’ /d. at 81 n.4 (Powell, J.,
concurring).” Renton, 748 F.2d at 536.

The quoted language is incomplete; when read in full
it is clear that the record in Young disclosed that
witnesses testified concerning the problems of other
cities, which problems could be expected to occur in
Detroit absent regulation of adult business. !3

The Ninth Circuit’s requirement that each city must
make a full independent and repetitive investigation
denies to these cities the benefit of the experience of
others while imposing a wasteful expenditure of public
funds. Smaller towns and communities should not be
required to spend the enormous amount of time and
funds necessary to merely duplicate the research and
testimony of experts obtained in larger cities. Justice
Powell’s concurring opinion in Young expressly
recognized that the law does not require a city to wait
until its citizens suffer their own personal disaster before
adopting legislation to attempt to avert such disasters.
Moreover, so long as there is no substantial adverse
impact on the dissemination of adult film fare, cities
and towns must have leeway to fashion innovative
solutions to the problems that inevitably accompany the

''The complete sentence is: “That evidence consisted of reports
and affidavits from sociologists and urban planning experts, as
well as some laymen, on the cycle of decay that had been started
in areas of other cities, and that could be expected in D-iroit,
from the influx and concentration of such establishments.” Young,
427 U.S. at 81 n.4 (Powell, J., concurring) (emphasis added).

10

opening of adult theaters. This Court should therefore
accept jurisdiction in this matter to clarify this
misapplication of its decision in Young and to restate
the doctrine of judicial deference to legislative acts.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, this Honorable Court
should undertake a full review of all the facts and issues
involved in the matter of the validity of Renton’s adult
business zoning regulations, not only for the purpose
of adjudicating the rights of the parties in that litigation,
but to restate the posture of zoning authorities, in
general, throughout the United States when confronted
with issues relating to First Amendment activities.

DATED: March 27, 1985

Respectfully submitted,

J. ROBERT FLANDRICK
City Attorney
Cities of Whittier, Baldwin Park, Bell; and
Burke, Williams & Sorensen

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

APPENDIX

APPENDIX “A”

All California Cities Joining in This Brief

Alhambra

Leland C. Dolley

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, | Ith Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017

Azusa

Peter M. Thorson

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, | Ith Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017

Baldwin Park

J. Robert Flandrick

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, | 1th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017

Bell

J. Robert Flandrick

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, | 1th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017

Burbank

William B. Rudell
275 East Olive Avenue
Burbank, California 91502

Camarillo

Colin Lennard

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, | Ith Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017

Al

Corona

Dallas Holmes

Best, Best & Krieger

4200 Orange Street
Riverside, California 92501

Downey

Carl K. Newton

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017

El Monte

Sidney Maleck
11333 Valley Boulevard
El Monte, California 91734

El Segundo

Leland C. Dolley

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, | 1th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017

Glendale

Frank R. Manzano
613 East Broadway
Glendale, California 91206

Lemon Grove

Donald F. McLean
3232 Main Street
Lemon Grove, California 92045

Lodi

Ronald M. Stein

221 West Pine Street

Lodi, California 95240
A2

Lomita

Leland C. Dolley

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, I 1th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017

Long Beach

Robert W. Parkin
333 Ocean Boulevard, 11th Floor
Long Beach, California 90802

Los Angeles

Gary R. Netzer, Acting City Attorney
Claude Hilker, Chief Assistant City Attorney
200 North Main Street, Room 1700

Los Angeles, California 90012

Manhattan Beach

Carl K. Newton

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, | 1th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017

Oceanside

Charles R. Revlett
321 North Nevada
Oceanside, California 92054

Oxnard

K. Duane Lyders

300 West Third Street
Oxnard, California 93030
Redding

Randall A. Hays
760 Parkview Avenue
Redding, California 96001

A3

Redlands

Dallas Holmes

Best, Best & Krieger

4200 Orange Street
Riverside, California 92501

San Diego
John W. Witt

202 C Street, 3rd Floor
San Diego, California 92101

San Francisco

George Agnost, City Attorney

Burk E. Delventhal, Deputy City Attorney
City Hall, Room 206

San Francisco, California 94102

Santee

Gloria F. McLean
10765 Woodside Avenue
Santee, California 92071

West Covina

Colin Lennard

Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, | 1th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017

Whittier
J. Robert Flandrick
Burke, Williams & Sorensen

624 South Grand Avenue, | Ith Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017

A4

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
State of California
SS.
County of Los Angeles

I, the undersigned, say: I am and was at all times
herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States and
a resident of the County of Los Angeles, over the age
of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within
action or proceeding; that my business address is 11333
lowa Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90025; that on
March 27, 1985 I served the within Brief of Amici Curiae
in said action or proceeding by depositing true copies
thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage
thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los
Angeles, California, addressed as follows:

Clerk, United States Supreme Court Jack R. Burns, Esq.

One First Street, N.W. 10940 N.E. 33rd Place

Washington, D.C. 20543 Suite 107

(Original and 40 copies) Belleview, Washington 98004

Hon. Kenneth O. Eikenberry E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., Esq.

Attorney General Hogan & Hartson

Temple of Justice 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Olympia, Washington 98504 Washington, D.C. 20006

Robert Eugene Smith, Esq. Joyce Benjamin, Esq.

16133 Ventura Boulevard Academy for State & Loca!

Penthouse, Suite F Government

Encino, California 91436 444 N. Capitol Street, N.W.
Suite 349

Washington, D.C. 20001

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct. Executed on March 27, 1985, at
Los Angeles, California.

Joy Rivelli Miller
(Original signed)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0193%3A13. Public record. Not legal advice.