Motion for Writ in Fire Guard Corporation vs. California Department of Forestry ...| Trellis.Law

On January 25, 2019 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between California Fire Protection Coalition, Del Toro Trejo, Juan Carlos, Filed By: Fire Guard Corporation, Fire Guard Corporation, Shahangian, Bahman Brian, and California Department Of Forestry And Fire Protection, California Office Of The State Fire Marshal, Dennis Mathisen In His Official Capacity As State Fire Marshal, Does 1-10, Jeffery Schwartz In His Official Capacity As Deputy State Fire Marshall, Mike Richwine In His Official Capacity As State Fire Marshal, for (Civil Rights/Discrimination) in the District Court of Sacramento County.

Preview
1=1Lp/ENDORSED
1 TIMOTHY V. KASSOUNI, SBN 142907
KASSOUNI LAW MAY - 2 2019
2 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 2025
Sacramento, CA 95814 By:. J Mora / 1
3 Depuly ClerW f yi/h
Telephone: (916) 930-0030
4 Facsimile: (916)930-0033
E-Mail: Timothy@Kassounilaw.com
5
6 Attomeys for Plaintiffs Fire Guard Corporation, Bahman Brian Shahangian, Califomia Fire
Protection Coalition, and Juan Carlos Del Toro Trejo
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 CITY AND COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
g
I FIRE GUARD CORPORATION; Case No. 34-2019-00249221
o 11
(VI
O Os
BAHMAN BRIAN SHAHANGIAN, an
(S
12 mdividual; CALIFORNIA FIRE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
PROTECTION COALITION, a Califomia DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
< 3 13 Corporation; and JUAN CARLOS DEL RELIEF
TORO TREJO, an individual.
2o 14 BY FAX
§?
^u 15 Plaintiffs,

16 V.

H 17 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
18 FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION;
CALIFORNIA OFHCE OF THE STATE
19 FIRE MARSHAL; MIKE RICHWINE, in
his ofiScial capacity as State Fire Marshal;
20 JEFFERY SCHWARTZ, in his official
capacity as Deputy State Fire Marshall; and
21 DOES 1-10, inclusive,
22
Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27 Plaintiffs Fire Guard Corporation, Bahman Brian Shahangian, the California Fire Protection

28 Coalition, and Juan Carlos Del Toro Trejo (Plaintiffs) hereby complain against Defendants

-1-
First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
1 Califomia Department of Forestiy and Fire Protection (hereinafter Department), Califomia Office
2 of tiie State Fire Marshal (hereinafter OSFM), Mike Richwine (Mr. Richwine), and Jeflfrey
Schwartz (Mr. Schwartz), as follows:

PARTIES
5 1. The Department and OFSM are agencies of the State of California. Mr. Richwine is
6 the current acting State Fire Marshal within the Department, and Mr. Schwartz is the Deputy
State Fire Marshal in charge of enforcing the regulations at issue herein.
2. PlaintiffBahman Brian Shahangian (Shahangian) is President of Fire Guard
Corporation (Fire Guard). Fire Guard is an active Califomia Coiporation, which holds a valid
10 C16 (fire protection contractor) Hcense with the Contractors State License Board (CSLB), It is
o
9
o
(S OS 11 primarily engaged in the installation, maintenance, and repair of commercial fu^ sprinkler
^a 12 systems, and has pipefitter employees. Plaintiff Shahangian also holds valid CIO (electrical),
< 3 »
-J W ^ is 13 C36 (plumbing), and B (General Building Contractor) licenses with the CSLB.
bu
14 3. Plaintiff Califomia Fire Protection Coalition (Coalition) is a non-profit Califomia
15 corporation comprised of merit basedfireprotection companies. It advocates for the interests of
16 the fire protection industry, and merit basedfireprotection companies and their pipefitter
17 employees.
18 4.. Plaintiff Juan Carlos Del Toro Trejo (Mr. Trejo) is an individual residing in Oakland,
19 CA, and is an employee of Chris' Plumbing, Inc., which holds a valid C16 license.
20 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
21 5. The OSFM and the State Fire Marshal were granted discretionary authority by the
22 State Legislature under Health and Safety Code section 13110 to "propose, adopt, and administer
23 the regulations [he] deems necessary in order to ensure fire safety in buildings and structures
24 within this state mcluding regulations related to...certification, registration, licensing, reporting,
25 operation, and maintenance."
26 6. On February 3,2017, Dennis Mathisen, in his official capacity as State Fire Marshal at
27 the time, submitted proposed regulations to the State Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on the
28 subject of "Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems-Certification." The OAL approved the

-z-
First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
1 regulations, which became effective on July 1,2017.
2 7. The regulations are contained within Titie 19, Division 1, Chapter 5.5 of tiie
Califomia Code of Regulations (C.C.R.). The regulations are attached hereto as Exhibit A, along
with the OAL approval and the initial OAL submission by the State Fire Marshal.

5 8. The regulations pertain to the qualifications and certifications of those seeking to work
6 as Fire Sprinkler Fitters (hereafter "pipefitters"). The stated purpose ofthe regulations is to
7 "improve the performance and reliability of water-based fire protection systems by providing a
8 means to certify and register any person A^O installs, alters, repairs, or adds appurtenances to
9 such systems." ( C C R section 922.)

o 10 9. C C R . section 924.1 defines a "certified" fire spriiiklerfitteras one who completed an
9
o
(S
11 apprenticeship program, or possesses an active CSLB C-16 license, or possesses a sprinkler fitter
O
fN — so
^ S S 12 certification card issued by the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM). Thus, possession of an
< -g o, s^
13 active C-16 license alone is sufficient for "certification."
5 5 o •
C" - B S 14 10. C C R . section 925 specifies that anyone engaging in commercial fire sprinkler
i§ 15 installations be "certified" or "registered," including employees of a C-16 license holder.
< »• s •
^ -a «^
55 Io Pursuant to C C R section 938, in order to obtain an s^prenticeship registration an employee
(2 17 must be 16 years old, compete m AES 1005A application, must be accepted into an
18 apprenticeship program, and submit proof of employment with a C-16 contractor.
19 11. C C R section 939 states that in order to be "certified" as a fire sprinklerfitteran
20 applicant shall be at least 16 years old, shall complete an AES 1005 application, shall provide
21 either proof of completion of an apprenticeship program or proof of a valid C-16 license, and
22 shall pass a written examination. Thus, even if one holds a valid C-16 license, a written
23 examination is required prior to certification. This is in direct conflict with the above-referenced
24 definition (paragraph 9) of a "certified" fire sprinkler as one who possesses an active C-16
25 license alone. Defendants have taken the position that an examination is required
26 notwithstanding section 924.1, and a declaration from this Court is necessary to confirm that no
27 such examination is required. Govemment Code section 11349(c) requires that the regulations be
28 written so that they can be easily understood, and they were not.

-3^
First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
12. C C R . section 945 further requires that an "applicant" for certification have
performed 7000 hours in an apprenticeship program and havefiveyears of experience within the
scope oftiieregulations. This is also in direct conflict with the above-referenced definition ofa
"certified"firesprinkler as one who possesses an active C-16 license. This section also has the
potential of prohibiting licensed C-16 pipefittersfrompracticing then- trade if they do not have
the requisite 7000 hours in an apprenticeship program andfiveyears of experience, even though
the CSLB has no such requirements. However, there is an ambiguity in this section as to whether
the requirement of 7000 hours in an apprenticeship program andfiveyears of experience only
applies to an applicant for certification who is not aheady in possession of a C-16 license. A

o 10 declarationfromthis Court is necessary to resolve the ambiguity, and it is Plaintiffs' position that
9
o
fS
f<1
Os 11 it can only legally apply to applicants who are not existing C-16 hcense holders.
o
fs| —

< -3 OS
12 13. Despite the requirement of completion of an apprenticeship program, only owe non-
J 00 ^
bu 13 union organization offers such a program in Califomia: the Califomia American Fire Sprinkler
2 S2
«5 ^ 55 14 Association (CAFSA). CAFSA, however, requires applicants to then: program to b? at least 18
o
Os 15 years old (in conflict witii the regulatory scheme's 16 year-old requirement), and the program
fs)
SO
16 itself isfiveyears long. CAFSA also reqiures a preliminary examination before an applicant can
f2 17 be enrolled in the apprenticeship program, as well as high school diploma or GED. Thus, as a
18 practical matter, CAFSA as the only non-union organization imposes far stricter requirements
19 than the regulatory scheme. Further, CAFSA as the only non-union organization has only a
20 limited number of openings. By contrast, there are three union organizations offering
21 apprenticeship programs in Califomia: U.A. Local 669, U.A. Local 483, and U.A. Local 709.
22 These apprenticeship programs are only available to pipefitters that work for companies that are
23 signatory to the union.
24 14. In light of the foregoing, Plamtiffs are thus at immediate and irreparableriskof
25 having their employees tmable to work on commercial pipefitting jobs, despite existing contracts
26 in place for such work. Further, those v^dth existing C-16 licenses are at immediate and
27 ureparableriskof not being able to perform imdertake then: profession as commercial pipefitters,
28 as Defendants have constmed the regulatory scheme as requiring existing C-16 pipefitters to take

-4-
First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
1 an examination even though C C R section 924.1 defines a "certified"firesprinkler as one who
2 has an active C-16 license alone.
15. Plaintiff Mr. Trejo has been a pipefitter employee of Chris' Plumbing, hic. in
Oakland, CA for 22 years. He does not speak English and therefore cannot take the preliminary
5 examination required of CAFSA, nor the written examination required under the regulatory
6 scheme. Further, he does not have a high school diploma, nor the equivalent G.E.D. necessary to
7 even be enrolled in the CAFSA apprenticeship program, notwithstanding having been foreman
over 15 workers in the commercialfiresprinklerfittingtrade.
16. Despite regulatory discretion to afford each existing C-16 license holder direct and
fo
o 10 adequate notice of the regulatory scheme, including its grandfathering provisions, the record
9
o
fN
fn
OS
11 reveals insufficient effort by Defendants. Plaintiffs never received notice ofthe final adopted
f—^
SO
12 regulatory scheme directiyfromany governmental entity, and, once they did receive second-
< -g OS
13 hand knowledge, the opportunity to take advant^e of the grandfather provisions expired.
14 Further, Neither Defendants nor then: agents ever sent notice to C-16 pipefitters of the final
c« o 55
o
m 15 adopted regulatory scheme. This has created the immediate and ureparable mjury of preventing
^ s-i
fN
VO
Os

16 licensed C-16 pipefitters such as Plaintiffs, and unlicensed pipefitters who meet the experience
E2 17 requirement,fromtaking advantage of the grandfather provision and bemg able to practice thefr
18 profession. Local governmental entities have ahready issued stop work notices for ctirrent jobs in
19 progress by many C-16 licence holders throughout the State, including a job undertaken by
20 Plaintiffs Shahangian and Pure Guard.
21 17. Further, Defendants failed to comply with the Califomia Administrative Procedures
22 Act m adopting the regulatory scheme. Defendants failed to establish that the regulations are
23 necessary to address problems for which they are proposed. (Govemment Code section
24 11346.2(b)(1); 11349(a).) Defendants also failed to provide a sufficient economic impact
25 analysis, failed to detennine cost impacts on businesses and persons, failed to properly assess
26 reasonable altematives, failed to properly assess the effect on housing costs, and failed to
27 properly assess estimated costs to local agencies or school districts.
28

-5-
First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
1 18. Plaintiffs have a fundamental vestedrightintiieu-existmg and operative C-16 license,
2 which is the basis for then- ability to engage ui the trade of commercial sprinkler pipefittmg.
3 Courts have interpreted fundamental vestedrightsto include individualrightsguaranteed under
4 the due process and equal protection clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions. (County of
5 Alameda v. Board ofRetirement (1998) 46 Cal.3d 902,907.) The abrogation of a fundamental
6 vestedright"is too important to the individual to relegate it to exclusive administrative
7 extinction." (Bixby v. Piemo (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130,144.) Accordingly,tfieindependent judgment
8 standard of review should apply to the Court's review ofthe regulations at issue.
9 19. On December 31,2018, counsel for Plaintiffs informed the Chief Counsel for the
fn
m 10 Department, Bmce Crane, that Plaintiffs were requesting access to the rulemakingfilefor the
o 11
C3
fn
Os regulations at issue, pursuant to Govemment Code section 11347.3. Having received no
12 response, on January 2,2019, counsel for Plaintiffs reiterated the request for access to the
< -5 Os
J c« ^
is 13 rulemakingfile.That same day Mr. Crane responded that he had "asked" the Office ofthe State
•
o 14
fn Fire Marshall for this information and was "still waiting to hear from them." Counsel for
i 15 Plaintiffs received no further communicationfromMr. Crane. On January 14,2019, counsel for
fS VO
so E 16 Plaintiffs received a disc from the Department containing the mlemakingfile.The unexplamed
E2 17 delay in allowing for unmediate review of the rulemakingfileis in violation of Govemment
18 Code section 11347.3. This section provides in part: "[cjommencing no later than the date that

19 the notice ofthe proposed action is published in the Califomia Regulatory Notice Register, and

20 during all subsequent periods of time that thefileis m the agency's possession, the agency shall

21 make thefileavailable to the pubUc for mspection and copying during regular btisiness hours."

22 Thefilesprovided did not include the meeting minutes and other pertment documents.

23 20. In March, 2019 cotmsel for Plamtiffs received a 'Svithdrawn" rulemaking file, and m
24 April, 2019 counsel for Plaintiffs received copies of documentsfromthe Attomey General's
25 office regarding purported notices to C-16 license holders of the proposed regulatory scheme.
26 These documents reveal that Defendants never sent notice of the final adopted regulatory scheme
27 to C-16 license holders, and never made an effort to provide notice of the proposed regulations

28 or the adopted regulations to employees of C-16 license holders, which it could have done

First Amended Con^laint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
1 through Califomia Employment Development Department databases.
2 VENUE
3 21. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 393(b),
4 because the office ofthe Department and the individual Defendants are located in Sacramento
5 Coimty, CA, as is the admmistration of the regulations at issue.
6 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Constitutional and Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983)
(Declaratory Relief, Violation of Due Process)

22. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-21 and 42-83 as though set
forth fully herein.
1.1 10
23. The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 of the United States Constitution
O
(N m 11
O
n fn 11 that defeated the system (17% of failures). This also has nothing to do with quality of
(N Os
q -r
fS — so
^
^ £
< -g OS
^ 12 mstallation or pipefitter expertise. This issue arises when building owners or occupants modify

:en< s 13 the buildmg or otherwise compromise the operation of the fire sprinkler system. Thus, the
2 S O U,
5 I o • 14 regulatory scheme at issue herein is unnecessary for this purpose.
^.^ i i 15 38. The third reason proffered by NFPA for sprinkler failure is lack of maintenance (6%
^ f^ i ps,
2 lo of failures). This has nothing to do with the quality of mstallation. Rather, m order to save
(2 17 mpney on operating costs some building owners fail to hire afireprotection contractor to
18 periodically inspect the fire sprinkler system, and to perform any required maintenance. As a

19 result, some buildings are not managed professionally and are not adeqtiately maintained. Thus,

20 the regulatory scheme at issue herein is unnecessary for this purpose.

21 39. The fourth reason proffered by NFPA for sprinkler failure is installation of an
22 mappropriate system for certain types offire(5%). This typically occurs when a building which
23 is initially designed for a tenant with a certam fheriskis later occupied by a tenant with a higher
24 firerisk.For example, a warehouse with afiresprinkler system designed for ordinary hazard
25 occupancy later becomes vacant, and the owner leases it to a new tenant with an operation
26 classified as Extra Hazard Occupancy. Thus, the regulatory scheme at issue herein is
27 unnecessary for this purpose.
28

-10-
First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
1 40. Moreover, no evidence was included m the record of a smgle sprinkler failure during
2 fire attributable to improper installation by a C-16 hcense holder, or pipefitters working for a C-
3 16 license holder. Given the evidence that unproper sprinkler mstallation is not causing
4 widespread safety problems, there is no rational basis for placing duplicative and burdensome
5 regulations on C-16 hcense holders and pipefitters working under their supervision, given that
6 the C-16 license holder is ultimately responsible and Hable for all work performed by himself
and all pipefitters working under his supervision. There is certainly no basis for it under an
independent judgment standard of review.
41. To the extent any rational basis for these requirements exists, the connection to
m
tn
o 10 public health and safety is so tenuous and so out of proportion to the burden ofthe requirements
9
o
>n
fN
fn
Os
11 on C-16 license holders and their pipefitters that these restrictions should be stmck down as pure
©
n — so
^ a 5; 12 protectionism and a violation of fundamental vestedrights.This is especially the case as there is
'3 ^ 13 only one non-union organization in Califomia offering an apprenticeship program, the

5 § o" • 14 Cahfomia American Fhe Sprinkler Association (CAFSA). Unions are also actively soliciting

2-^ i i 15 general contractors who have existhig contracts with merit-based contractors. Unions have
<^ § s
- <» ^ 16 pomted out the regulatory scheme at issue m order to dissuade general contractors Scom doing
Os

17 busmess with merit-based companies, citing the "trouble" it will cause when the merit-based
18 companies and their employee pipefitters have difficulty complying with the regulations.
19 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
20 (Constitutional and Chil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983)
(Declaratory Relief, Violation of Equal Protection and Due Process)
21
22 42. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-41 and 48-83 as though set

23 forth fully herein.

24 43. Plaintiffs have a fundamental vestedrightin their existing and operative C-16

25 license, which is the basis for their ability to engage in the trade of commercial sprinkler

26 pipefittmg. Courts have interpreted fundamental vestedrightsto include individual rights

27 guaranteed imder the due process and equal protection clauses ofthe state and federal

28 Constittitions. (County ofAlameda v. Board ofRetirement (1998) 46 Cal.3d 902,907.) The

-11-
First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
abrogation of a fimdamental vestedright"is too important to the mdividual to relegate it to
exclusive administrative extinction." (Bixby v. Pierno 4 Cal.3d 130,144.)
3 44. Despite regulatory discretion to afford each existmg C-16 license holder direct and
4 adequate notice of the fmal adopted regulatory scheme, including its grandfathering provisions,
5 the record reveals no such effort by Defendants. Plaintiffs never received notice of the final
6 adopted regulatory scheme directiyfromany governmental entity, and once they did receive
second-hand notice the opportunity to take advantage of the grandfather provisions expired.
45. The failure to provide actual and adequate notice has resulted m the deprivation of
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated licensed C-16 holders to practice their professions, despite
fn
fn
o 10 active C-16 licenses. Proper notice should have been provided to all valid C-16 hcense holders
9
o
fn
Os 11 informing them of the drastic changes that affect theirrightsand therightsof thousands of pipe
S
fN •m being able to inform their employee
19 pipefitters of the new regulations and the effect that it would have on theh ability to make a
20 living in the trade that they have spent years gaining experience and expertise. Had actual
21 notice been provided. Plaintiffs and all similarly situated C-16 license holders, as well as
22 thousands of pipefittersthat have the requhed experience, could have taken advantage of the
23 grandfather clause offered by the regulation and minimized the impact on theh busmess and
24 livelihood by simply paying the £q)plication fee and obtaining theh certification. Notice could
25 have been provided with minimal cost and effort.
26 47. Federal and State Equal Protection and Due Process provisions require Plaintiffs and
27 all C-16 license holders to have received actual notice of thefinaladopted regulatory scheme
28

-12-
First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
1 that by its own terms will result in the deprivation oftiieability to practice thehti^deunless
2 certam action is taken withm specified grandfathering timeframes.
3 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
4 (Constitutional and Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983)
(Declaratory Relief, Violation of Contract Clause)
5
6 48. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-47 and 53-83 as though set

7 forth fully herein.

8 49. Article I, section 10, clause 1 ofthe United States Constitution provides in part:

9 "No State shall... pass any... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts."
m
fn 10 50. The regulatory scheme impairs the contractualrightsof existing C-16 license

in
o
fn 11 holders, who have executed contracts for commercial sprinkler work without actual notice of the
Os
S
(S — so regulatory scheme or its grandfathering timeframes, in violation of the Contracts Clause ofthe
> S >o S 12
< "5 ^
United States Constitution.
a 13
o * 5 oo . 51. Plaintiffs and most C-16 fne protection contractors have existing contractual
S o 8g 14
^8 6
15
agreements with property owners for commercial fire sprinkler work, which were executed prior
fn to the effective date of the regulations and are ongoing. These existmg contracts are impahed by
16
OS the regulatory scheme, which will also expose Plamtiffs to liability from third parties.
17
Contractors have been bannedfromcontinuing then* work since their certification is not in place
18
and are facing liquidation damages fiom the property owners and general contractors.
19
52. The regulatory scheme unpairs thefimdamentalsubstantive and procediu^ property
20
21 rights of Plaintiffs, and further interferes with existing and anticipated contractual relationships.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22
(Constitutional and Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983)
23 (Declaratory Relief, Violation of Due Process)
24 53. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 -52 and 58-83 as though set
25 forth fiilly herein.
26 54. To work as an apprentice prior to passing the examination, a pipe fitter must be
27 actively enrolled in a State or Federally approved apprenticeship program.
28

-13-
First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
1 55. To enroll in such a program, the pipefittermust pass an entrance exam that is given
2 only m English and requires a high school diploma or GED.
3 56. As explained above, a robust understandmg of English or high school level
4 mathematics has no relationship to one's ability to be a pipefitter. Moreover, many qualified and
5 experienced pipefitterswill be excluded from apprenticeship programs because they lack
6 proficiency in English or advanced mathematics, and do not have a high school diploma or GED,
as is the case with Mr. Trejo. Historically, the United States has been a society welcoming to
immigrants. The regulatory scheme tums that on its head by creating impossible barriers to
certification for non-union members, and thus in turn creating a "union members only" club.
fn
fn
o 10 57. For the same reasons set forth above for the pipefitter examination, the
9
o
n fn
fN Os
o
(S
the superior court in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure."
00 « 12
< - g OS
J c« ^
68. In addition to any other ground that may exist, "a regulation or order of repeal may
13
be declared invalid i f . . . [t]he agency declara.tion pursuant to paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of
ill 14
W3 ^ 55
CA . « n Section 11346.5 is in conflict with substantial evidence in the record." Gov't Code § 11350.
i5 15
— c«
(N
Paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 11346.5 provides, m fiill, that:
SO
* 16
If a state agency, in adopting, amendmg, or repealing any administrative
E2 17 regulation, makes an initial determination that the action will not have a
significant, statewide adverse economic impact directiy affecting business,
18 mcluding the ability of Califomia businesses to compete with businesses in other
states, it shall make a declaration to that effect in the notice of proposed action. In
19 making this declaration, the agency shall provide in the record facts, evidence,
20 documents, testunony, or other evidence upon which the agency relies to support
its initial determination.
21
Gov't Code § 11346.2(b)(5)(A) contams a similar requirement.
22
69. During the notice and comment period for the adoption of the regulations challenged
23
herein, included in both the rulemaking file and the withdrawn rulemaking file. Defendants
24
received numerous comments regarding the draconian economic unpacts that the proposed
25
regulations would have on commercial pipefitters,fireprotection prevention businesses, the
26
constmction industry in general, consumers as property owners and renters, and the Califomia
27
28

-16-
First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
1 public. For example, several commenters noted that the regulations would substantially impact
2 theu* busmesses.
3 70. Yet Defendants failed to address the draconian impact that the regulatory scheme
4 will have on the commercial pipefitting mdustry witii respect to application of Califomia and
5 Federal prevailmg wage laws. C-16 license holders will now be reqmred to employ
6 apprenticeship pipefitters, and those pipefitters will be reqiured to be paid prevailmg wages
7 consistent with regulations adopted by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) and the
8 Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS). The wage unpacts on commercial pipefitting
9 busmesses will be m the range of $150 million to $1 billion, depending on apprenticeship level
fn
fn
o 10 and geographical location. This includes wage impacts, apprenticeship training (CAFSA and
in
fN
11 the American Fire Sprinkler Association), bookkeeping, reporting, and continuing education.
o
^ a .r,
IM
^ &FFICEOF
ADMINISTRATIVE UW

A.PUHJaiTIONOFN(mCE (CMiipteteferF«bicMloiilnfl«tlwR«|
1. IWWtBnOPWUHIHinKR
TKBEeransmBi ——————
4. MENCrOONmCfKMOM MIHUURRieseBI "
1 I RHukinMAdlM L J O t W
aM/iiaii IUNUHW wuuiuHmiui
nsasr
OMLY \nsssr DiBs
B. SUBMISSIONOPItBaUMYIOIIS(CoiiipMtt«li«Mbm^^
to. auMeTorntouumHCB}
Automat Rre Extinguishing Systems-Certffkation 2Ot6-1O06^S
iimBM9C6n».
VVOVi C V B W U n n n i Q V ^ f CDI^pBM i m n O S rr aiMtciicad»aqi.ddi'

an9l6e«.Ca*«lli>4Ml Q ntAMM • MttOn^

July 27,201GKCH*wim/n« L l a»*fcfrfBMfc I—I m i«iiiaMi LJ
IL CMeCK>TI«8>BBUUTOI8IIKlU»gll0roift0WI«W»tC0l^
Q DQi*fti«tmc4 nana (TmSiaKSI ISAM MeMI Q f*»»*WPtK(k»»C)• liMlllytliMII>»attedw4co»y»fttow9iJatlaBti|b»ttw»awd V>4811^Healft'and-eafety^flde:-- — --^ = — ...

923. Scope.
la^ These regulations apoiv to vwk consisting of the insteliatton. aHeratioh orrepairof
aH water-based fire Pfotection systems as deHned In Section 924.12.

EXCEPTIONS;
(1) instellatlon. alteration or repair of one and 1wo-fiamlly residential sorinlder systemg la

(2) The bistailatlon. alteration orrepairof underaround water SUPPIV lines from the
connection of the viwter supplytothe first toint. or mechanical connection at the base of
the systemriser,are excluded from these regulations.
(3^ The Instellatlon of Pfe-enolneered water-based fixed exttnoulshlno systems are
eycluded fiom these regulations.
• *epooMa|^St^iiWH'6aet
u(i6itttB^H'0ilfe<.

'^H^U8A(^t^aiteA|td|i^
iH pill 11 r. H'P r.i vr.iT-TTTIT V

wggpgs
ui#wuajjr^bftj ^fluftftwijbiBMidda-uodn jftfaid j^d$ paypb »<4 NftiBW

aiiai^ i6iai4u^BiaiJ|^lij80ABbitid6d^
8^gga»j|di4i>Ui»ia^udBW^
-UidJtkiJd d^ItebilttokldV iitliy J^l^idSftiypeAdJIddi^

'db PUB 'Ot t6^ Uoflb^S A^J^flrtV i310M
kJbitbdg ledU^^ey 'Opdd A^es (Mie liU^i^ 'oU^I. MoRd^il^ta^ A)tidLAriV :^XON
• "1 sejiotk (V) ind^ ' W m ^ piM 'oj dn ^kin butfje^i^
eJoUi Jo (6) 4ejm AOUedrtb^o taftUapjB^ V 'ein^bhij^ Itfft^^^}^ AaUiej-njhy^ (^)
'9»6 U<^ft^ Ut sftteiUeijnbej atft jeUi eAeq 6MM AjUO
Wiiniahiia |lBt|U6t>|84i AljUife^-tilriUi uj 8aid;6Aa Uoj^did | ) « e < H ^ Udj^l^l W ^
liiidiiMrilatehbtAlOUl BUiMOjlB aOrtabUiiteb y ' U d a i ^ ^ lenU^ftea^ Ai|Ui«y-t«rWI5J •
•auoiktutted M„ 'me

JOp^iiUiOi^ UOj^aejAid 6J|j pi6flfl eftUO&n id|6a4Ub;^ W ^ i ' ^ V *ftWa55iT(e?

UdftoftS :e6UaidJ^y 'atkia A^ai^ m '(tUti UoftWfe tm> AwdqihV ^aJJ^K
TOtdetja 8{tft t^jM BdUBpioOatt U\ pm^^ A|8noiAdJd 6t>^|3|AB)U| JO UittiBdia dlM^O^itddV
tbue ajndq tWjplbai Otft 0g|Otdmoa Ajlhjss^xiris m\ dMM UOsiOd V UWiA^hdr (B)

. : 'd06aA^^0u»mWM'OttfeT
Ubi|60^ teauOiOIad 'ftjfto^ A^^s PUB tfliB<;H 'OUfci Udri^fts :i;aMi» A^iOlfthV :lLQKi
*miim U6i^5ft|Qid 6% ^e4-Je|fay^ p JjWtei J6 'Udftfti^tt

'epdbAt^ftUaittiiWM'OUgr
U6Bdri§ leoUAJel^ A^Oji^ftUe^MWH 'oUci. tidi|6as ift6I|d A^iidljlriV i3JL5W
'jetoegp sim ja Udft^6 ^1 i>eq)i5tel> 8>8 bji^ SOiigpad oijM ^i^Jti^W^WPcte ^
2/9/17

(a) Notice to Appear. A summons or writ bv which a oereon la citedtoaop^^f }n y^iirf
(b) Notice of Vioiatton. To give attentiontoan Infraction or breach ofthe law.

NOTE: Authorih^ cited: Section 13110. Health and Safety Code. Refsrence: S ^ r >

(a) Reqigtmed Fire SwInKler Fitter. An apprentice or trainee, m&etino the aDo»cah|»
prereqyi8lte8 ae Mentified in Aftlcie 6. who has provided the raouirad documantafflni^,
submitted a comoteted aooiication. paid applicabte fees and haa obtained a panlatf?t|ffn
card issued bvthe Office of the Stete Rre MarslTql,
(b^Reoair. To rwtore to nomaiworidno condition ortofixdamaoa.
fc^ Registered Rre Sprinider Fitter Card. A card issued by the Office of the State Flra
Marshartoaprinkler fitter apprentloes or trainees uoon apprpvai of meeting the

NOTE: AuthortN dted: Section 13110. Health and Sqfeh/ Code. Reference: SecHog
19110. HMlthftn^l^af^C^ft.

fa) state Fire MarahaffSFM). Pursuantto the Health and Safety Code. Section 1,^^91.
the Stete Fhe Marahal shall be appointed bv the Governor with the advice and comuifii^i^
the senate and ahaH hold offloe at the nteasure of the Qovemor.
fb) State Rre lyiarslMlfSFM^Destonee. As deflnad In the Health and Safety Coda.
Sectona 13103 ahd 13104. the State Rre Marehal Daatonea are those aestetent or Daoiity
Stete Rre Marshals vwho aid inthe enfbroementof all lawa. regulations and orilnandBa
adopted in the State of CaUfornia and la a person who haa been designated bvthe S F ^ t ^
act on hismer behalf in an official caoadtv. —

NOTE: Authority dtedt Sections 13101.13103.13104 and 13110. HeaMji agd ggfaiY
-COde^WatereneeeSedioris-ISI^

924.11. T'DehfUBon».
(a) Trainee. A pereon or indlvldua! wortqnq In the Are protection Industry Inomr^
water-basedfireprotecMon systems at an entnMevel posHton aa described in Seetton oa?.

NOTE: Authority dted: Section 13110. Health and S a f ^ Code. Reference: Serilon
13110. Health and Safbtv Code.

92A.12."WrDeBnltlona.
fa) Water-Based Fire Protection Systems. A system that Inciudes a wet dn^. pra-acttof^^
and delude flra sprinkler system, induding small hose connections. stenddDe tc^rpi^,
, 'otH)5 At^^ iiate 'oUti
UdftoO^ ;eoUe)fc|6^ 'O^At^g pUfe M)j^H 'O^gi, UoftWS :t»^dAlpOlttftV ^jlOhl

y esim^^Un uonbMp^ mmih iWis^ AfaUifti-CiBWTZr

jBiiyjoflSpls^W

ttjiftdtW^dIi»ftfe8|

tidrtflfe^ i^autittelfl^ 'apoa Ate^fe t^ft ^)1B^ 'OUfit U<>tf^ IpeP AIM'
I6WJ16ft^daOT !iinn i - l

ioOUfctudili^6iaaiftj8iAdJddiitip^feHi^^ Taauofto
^lidwjd 60 uo{)idj|fi|0OJ JO ubp^opto udAi^idw AuitoiiJ6»i
tlStfllitfflj'^
elft ]flfl6ai6eijl pftplAdJd VfedQt ^ Jd jMolfi^VftUUdiU6 iBilftJi^ftjye>8>a
dift id 6600 m «n BUBMM uiftpguiBWtf udntijw^i J6 uflWiiu^ M mm^sf W
'6»idt|JVtl|aUdt8iA&id«nMP^5liftp^^
m pftrtWBttjftm66e6Mftj^t^58WM6»9^ Jo UOftHt|B|flJ|ttgiUj OBeBUft i|B'l|fl UdggiTSiTCgy

lioims i^bUAiOjeg ' 0 ^ AtajBg pUft MtiaeH 'OUfei Udljdds AyidW :3lON
I\m pue 'smdjftAa UIW4 Udt^Uftffitt jjPjtl 'OinlfWU
'Mdl 'feiUbt asttidta jetfaM '^Uiirifl dJg 'gluelsAsia^BMUJ^'^e^ ABJdsJatb/T'Sgp^
JdilUoUi pUB atuttipAtj BUIphtoUi '666uBU6tiriddb J j ^ PU^ sujftUi eajAidsftjye^i^lJd

nim
2/B/17

926. Maximum Number of Directs Supervlaad Emploveea.
A Certified Rre Sprinkler Fitter may sunenrise the number of aoorenticas oewiHtad in
their Apprenticeship Agreement and UPtotwo f2) trafneeiL
NOTE: AuthoriW cited: Section 13110. Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sedl^p
13110. Health and Safety Code.

Article 4. Enfbreemant
9^„Vl9lfrtMHfft
TheSFM.SFMDe8taneeorAWteauthori2edtoln8oedpniiedvw)rt(aitesv«hafa^^
on Are protection systems is beinaperitonnedtoensure ihqt persons performino tha
possessvalldoertificatlQnfforrepistrationsasrBoutrBdbythlsChaptM^ TheSFM^ff,^
Designee or AHJ ts authorizedtoreoulre Demons oeribmilno vi^kto provide omof «yf
apollcabte certlflcatlon or registration card. Any person who cannot show proof of
certification orregistrationtothe SFM. SFM Designee or AHJ shaB be subjecttoSarfioryi
fflg^hlPMflhOy^.
NOTE: Authority dted; Section 13110. Health end Safety Code. Reference: Secffon
1311Q.H^md$flWYfiodO.

928. Proaecutlon of Violations.
(a) Vtototore are sublecttoa Notice of Violation or Conectton Order issued bv the SFM.
SFM Designee or AHJ and shail oonteln at a minimum the yloiatoi*s name, emolovar
cartWcatton or raoistratton number, lob location, date, and a desoriotton of the offen^.
(b\ If a Notioe of Violation or Correction Order Is not oorrected vulthln sevenhMwn (77)
houre of issuance, the SFM. SFM Designee or AHJ Is authorizedtoissue a "Stoo Wort^
Ordei^ aa defined InTitle 24. CaHfomia Coda of Raotitatfana. Part 0 and hn aeeoiriflnrft
y>|tt^S6ffIMW9,
NOTE: Authority dted: Sections 13108 and 13110. Health and Safety Code. Reference:
Sedtona 13108 and 13110. Health and Safeh^Code.

929. Stop Woric Order.
If the SFM. SFM Designee or AHJ. detemiines that the Inateltetion of vyater^iafiad
protection systems is being pertbnned in vioiatlon ofthis Charter and after orovidinp
notice in accordance with Section 928. he or she is authorizedtoissue a "Stop Woric
Order^ as defined In Title 24. Cailforoia Code of Regulations. Part 9. Woric v»ithin the .
scope of thia Chapter shall notresumeuntil a full investloaOoh bvthe SFM. SFM Deekinae
or AHJ haa been completed and verification has been made that all woric on the fire
protection system In Question hes been perfbmied bv duly euthorized person^,
2W17 ' • I

NOTE: Authority cited: Sedlons 13108 and 13110. Health and Safety Coda. Referanna-
Sections 13108and 13110.Hc«itIiandSa^^ v ^ ^ i w p..w^^ri«^..

930. Report of Violations.
ra) Any actionteiiW6a J ^ Ji^lHUjJdg ^^idtUOQ 3 pe^Mfersersng)

>^Mftia§pu»ifti«5FrgngF
Pim pu>^ Ajji^ua P^Maufti ^ am^^ ^atUiftiddft i|&ite 'j^p^i^ta W W
HiSpiteidMiqi ippgi^ iiii8ii*dia dmfemiftiadtt iBUoftippft Aua jwui puia i^asis

6l-aflife)i^ui^aa pftautoft A^^ddifl jd^ftuwpauoflo^ m P^W»iSiSS
J6 UbflBfttt|fiU| UiJdjJM AjUd pqs UdlWHtoy aaHUdJfldV de BUi8668add UftftlgflW?
'^oCTTff^g
JfeHU.Ud§ftiypdyrtJflt) >^ U6{§lAiddh§ etjl JetAjft »dM IIBM6 66BUflJddl& ^ (5J
ft^HtiftiadV
SsUtoll ui^ p BlUiflilflfta
fl^S Wi>a»ido ^ ^ H< lA
i PflsUd5i|
IUW)||ddftiftiM
Uii 'ftAotib V HbrtdJlft
)U0UjA6>dlliilft i. JOftPjAdJd
JO Jflftlfl |BA6iddB
(»)Uddfl (<0
'jdkbyjiU^dl-dPiMfl
&iU pftAdJddB Atfail^ JO Btaictfiifeo J6 «65e
iVa001> 6aV) UOnMHfldV UOft^H^IB^ ^lajJjfepftldaV Uli d^didtUob [Z)
"J»p|6:i6ftBBJOtiJBteAftl.ftfl(p
BUjA^irtflii Am I06UJ tlBtlfl lUaaiddb Oft 'dahUaJddB UB ^ pftJftWIW 6<| Ol (BJ

^ "dpoa A|^6 PUB MI|B^ '01.1.^1
Udilb^S '.WUftjdjay ' l ^ ^ AiajBg tklB LfliB^H 'tiiti Udftdft^ I^lt^ A|tidlftt)V ^aiftN
;^ 'uOfi^OAi'qtin&JIAisi.Aiftr
I P g r o S ^ puB ApftUUB paM^ftqUBifc UdftB48}MJtodlBijH&W •j6UWJ»ia
gbnr MPnoiift ^BftsSI Jd ^Bp Bift tito4 HjaA 9t\ U6ftB4^B8ii eWje^ |ftM|titJo UV W
'feU6ftB)rW&i eBetft Jo BddWfeiflUHffjM MJOM d^ pflJB>l>|Hai Bd JBBUOi OU m » [Mmm
jd ^)BP JjBlft Jd JBeA (t) 0U6 uj^lM UiBJbdJfl djljflBdBUftJddB JBUlJiBpiUiJas
BJiJ peXajfldB A||BJB0dJ JO BIbfe B|UJiajl|Bc^ B <4U| pB^dBdbB JoU 6] BBUjiaJI Btft Jl (J)
^ 'BJjit J6 B;Bp JjBtnjo JBaA [j) 6U6 UjmtM UiBiBidild amWiyjaiddB
felto JBpiutids BJ|JftfeAaJfldBAj|ftiBpBJ Jo e^ BluJOfflBa B 6^ pBJBWWJ ^ (t)
ll

Case Info

Judge

Shama Hakim Mesiwala Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

May 02, 2019

Case Filing Date

January 25, 2019

County

Parties

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Defendant
California Fire Protection Coalition Plaintiff
California Office of the State Fire Marshal Defendant
Courtney S Covington Attorney for the Defendant
Del Toro Trejo, Juan Carlos Plaintiff
Dennis Mathisen in his official capacity as State Fire Marshal Defendant
Does 1-10 Defendant
Filed By: Fire Guard Corporation Plaintiff
Fire Guard Corporation Plaintiff
Jeffery Schwartz in his official capacity as Deputy State Fire Marshall Defendant
Margaret Esquiroz Attorney for the Plaintiff
Mike Richwine in his Official Capacity as State Fire Marshal Defendant
Shahangian, Bahman Brian Plaintiff
Timothy V Kassouni Attorney for the Plaintiff
William L Gausewitz Attorney for the Plaintiff
Andrea Kendrick Attorneys for Defendants
Russell Hildreth Attorneys for Defendants
Timothy Vo Attorney
Navdeep Miller Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Deepi Miller Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Timothy Hu Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Complaint,Petition: Fire Guard Corporation vs. California Department of Forestry ...

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties