Garcia v. Dicterow
California Court of Appeal
2008 WL 5050358 (2008)
- Written by Galina Abdel Aziz , JD
Facts
Laguna Beach (city) (defendant) prohibited the solicitation of employment on any street, highway, public area, or nonresidential parking area within the city. However, the city funded, by a grant, the South County Cross Cultural Council (council). The council operated and managed the Laguna Beach Day Worker Center (center), which was formally designated as the approved area for soliciting employment by a city ordinance. Neither the city nor the council verified whether the day laborers at the center were legally eligible to work in the United States. Eileen Garcia and George Riviere (plaintiffs) sued the city, alleging that the city used taxpayer resources to fund an illegal expenditure in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324 and 1621, which prohibited referring an illegal alien for employment in the United States. Garcia argued that the council was the city’s agent and that the city’s actions were federally preempted. Garcia sought a declaration that the expenditure was unlawful, void, and a waste of taxpayer funds, and sought an injunction restraining and preventing the city from continuing the expenditure. The trial court ruled for the city, concluding that Garcia and Reviere failed to prove that the city’s expenditure was federally preempted and that Garcia was not entitled to an injunction. Garcia and Reviere appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ikola, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.