Opinion
NO. CIV. S-01-2407 WBS GGH.
August 21, 2007
ORDER
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.
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 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.