Case 3:18-cv-04652-LB Document 1 Filed 08/02/18 Page 1 of 14

1 Amitai Schwartz (CSB #55187)

Law Offices of Amitai Schwartz
2 2000 Powell St., Suite 1286
Emeryville, CA 94608-1860
3 (510) 597-1775
(510) 597-0957 (fax)
4 attorneys@schwartzlaw.com
5 Attorney for Plaintiffs
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BAART PROGRAMS, INC., ) NO.
12 BAYMARK HEALTH SERVICES, )
INC., AND ADDICTION )
13 RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, )
INC. )
14 )
Plaintiffs, )
15 ) COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
vs. ) AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
16 ) AND DAMAGES
CITY OF CONCORD, ANDREA )
17 OUSE, and DOES 1 through 10, )
)
18 Defendants. )
______________________________ )
19
20
INTRODUCTION
21
1. Methadone treatment is a medication assisted means of medically
22
treating opioid use disorder in a clinic setting, under physician supervision
23
directed at the rehabilitation of persons who are narcotic dependent. It is a
24
comprehensive treatment modality
25
2. Methadone is a prescribed medication used in sustained, stable,
26
medically determined dosage levels for a period in excess of 21 days, to reduce or
27
eliminate chronic opioid addiction, while the patient is provided a comprehensive
28

NO.
COMPLAINT 1
 Case 3:18-cv-04652-LB Document 1 Filed 08/02/18 Page 2 of 14

1 range of treatment. It is a long-acting synthetic narcotic analgesic. Treatment

2 includes services which will habilitate and rehabilitate patients with an opioid
3 addiction to a basic level of social, life, work, and health capabilities that help
4 them become productive, independent members of society. Services include
5 replacement therapy, evaluation of medical, employment, alcohol, criminal, and
6 psychological problems, screening for diseases that are disproportionately
7 represented in the opioid-abusing population, monitoring for illicit drug use,
8 counseling by addiction counselors that are evaluated through ongoing
9 supervision, and professional medical, social work, and mental health services,
10 on-site or by referral.
11 3. This is a lawsuit for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. It
12 challenges the CITY OF CONCORD’s interference with the issuance of permits,
13 renovations, and operations of a methadone clinic within an area of the City
14 otherwise zoned to permit such a use.
15 4. Federal law prohibits public entities from excluding the disabled, or
16 discriminating against the disabled, or persons regarded as disabled, in the
17 provision of benefits, programs or activities. These protections of federal law
18 extend to persons participating in supervised drug rehabilitation programs. This
19 lawsuit challenges this discrimination and seeks equitable relief and damages.
20
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
21
5. Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a).
22
6. The court has pendent jurisdiction over the state claim.
23
7. Venue is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). A substantial part of
24
the events giving rise to the claims herein arose in the Northern District of
25
California and one or more defendants reside in the district.
26
27
28

NO.
COMPLAINT 2
 Case 3:18-cv-04652-LB Document 1 Filed 08/02/18 Page 3 of 14

1 INTRADISTRICT VENUE
2 8. The events giving rise to the claims herein arose in the County of
3 Contra Costa.
PARTIES
4
9. Plaintiff BAART PROGRAMS, Inc. (hereafter “BAART”) is a
5
Delaware corporation. BAART clinics provide methadone maintenance services at
6
locations in Los Angeles, Fresno, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Contra Costa
7
counties. It has clinics in Arizona, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, and
8
Vermont. Plaintiff BAART sues on behalf of itself and on account of injuries it
9
has suffered and will continue to suffer due to its association with persons with
10
disabilities.
11
10. BAART clinics are regulated by the federal Substance Abuse and
12
Mental Health Services Administration (“SAMHSA”) and the federal Drug
13
Enforcement Agency (“DEA”). BAART is a subsidiary of plaintiff BAYMARK
14
HEALTH SERVICES, Inc. BAART’s California clinics are licensed by the State
15
of California Department of Healthcare Services, certified by SAMHSA, and
16
registered with the DEA. Under various names, BAART has provided methadone
17
treatment services for 40 years.
18
11. The BAART methadone maintenance program is operated as a local
19
medical clinic targeted at chronic opioid users who have failed to respond to other
20
types of treatment.
21
12. Plaintiff BAYMARK HEALTH SERVICES, Inc. (hereafter
22
“BAYMARK HEALTH”), is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of
23
business in Lewisville, Texas. BAYMARK HEALTH clinics are regulated by the
24
federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
25
(“SAMHSA”) and the federal Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”). It has 73
26
narcotic treatment programs in 27 states and the province of Ontario, Canada. Its
27
medication treatment programs operate clinics utilizing methadone, buprenorphine
28

NO.
COMPLAINT 3
 Case 3:18-cv-04652-LB Document 1 Filed 08/02/18 Page 4 of 14

1 and vivitrol. In the United States, BAYMARK HEALTH clinics are licensed by
2 state authorities, certified by SAMHSA, and registered with the DEA.
3 BAYMARK HEALTH is the parent of BAART PROGRAMS. Plaintiff
4 BAYMARK HEALTH sues on behalf of itself and on account of injuries it has
5 suffered and will continue to suffer due to its association with persons with
6 disabilities.
7 13. Plaintiff ADDICTION RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, Inc. is a
8 California, Corporation. It is a subsidiary of plaintiff BAART PROGRAMS, Inc.
9 Plaintiff ADDICTION RESEARCH AND TREATMENT sues on behalf of itself
10 and on account of injuries it has suffered and will continue to suffer due to its
11 association with persons with disabilities.
12 14. Defendant CITY OF CONCORD is a political subdivision in the
13 State of California, Contra Costa County. It has the capacity to sue and be sued.
14 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore allege on information and belief
15 that defendant CITY OF CONCORD receives and distributes money from the
16 federal government for its programs and activities.
17 15. Defendant ANDREA OUSE is the Community and Economic
18 Development Director of the CITY OF CONCORD.
19 16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of such
20 information and belief allege, that each of said DOES 1 through 10 is responsible
21 in some manner for the unlawful acts alleged in this complaint. The true names
22 and capacities of said DOES 1 through 10, are presently unknown to plaintiffs.
23 Plaintiffs therefore sue said DOES 1 through 10, by such fictitious names and will
24 seek leave to amend this complaint to add their true names and capacities when the
25 same have been ascertained.
26
27
28

NO.
COMPLAINT 4
 Case 3:18-cv-04652-LB Document 1 Filed 08/02/18 Page 5 of 14

1
FACTS
2
17. At all times mentioned herein defendants acted under color of state
3
law.
4
18. Previous narcotic addiction is a disability with severe medical,
5
emotional, and societal consequences. Persons receiving medically supervised
6
methadone treatment are not capable of performing major life activities without
7
the assistance and support provided by methadone clinics or other approved
8
treatment modalities. Society views recovering narcotic addicts as damaged
9
individuals, incapable of leading ordinary productive lives. Society stigmatizes
10
previous illegal drug users and recovering drug addicts and many people and
11
institutions retain prejudices against former illegal drug users.
12
19. Methadone patients are screened and treated under the supervision of
13
licensed physicians and licensed nurse practitioners; methadone is administered by
14
licensed nursing staff. Each clinic has a medical director, physician.
15
20. Some patients pay for methadone treatment out of pocket, some are
16
covered by Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California), some by other public funding, and
17
some by insurance.
18
21. There are approximately 54,000 individuals suffering from opioid use
19
disorder in Contra Costa County.
20
22. There are only two clinics providing methadone maintenance
21
treatment in Contra Costa County, both operated by BAART: BAART Richmond
22
and BAART Antioch. BAART Richmond treats approximately 466 patients.
23
BAART Richmond patients are primarily, but not exclusively, residents of
24
Western Contra Costa County. BAART Antioch treats 914 patients. BAART
25
Antioch patients are primarily residents of Eastern Contra Costa County.
26
27
28

NO.
COMPLAINT 5
 Case 3:18-cv-04652-LB Document 1 Filed 08/02/18 Page 6 of 14

1 23. There are no methadone clinics located within Central Contra County,
2 which includes the cities of Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, and
3 Lafayette.
4 24. According to the Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury the City of
5 Concord had the highest number of per capita opioid overdose deaths in Contra
6 Costa County in 2015. In 2016 it ranked sixth.
7 25. The closest methadone clinics to Concord are located in Antioch,
8 Berkeley, Richmond, Oakland, Hayward, Santa Rosa, Stockton, and Vallejo.
9 26. In or about May 14, 2015 BAART, dba as Management Arts,
10 submitted a business description by letter to the CITY OF CONCORD Community
11 and Economic Development Department describing its services in connection with
12 potential use of a property located at 1957 Parkside Drive. The letter specified its
13 use as providing primary care services and substance abuse rehabilitation services
14 including methadone treatment. It specified that services would be delivered by a
15 physician, 1-2 nurse practioners/physician assistants, 1-2 LVNs, and counselors.
16 27. On or about May 18, 2015, the Concord Community and Economic
17 Development Department informed BAART in writing that its proposed use was
18 considered a “medical office” which would be permitted at the Parkside Drive
19 location without a discretionary permit.
20 28. On or about June 2, 2015 the CITY OF CONCORD requested
21 additional information, specifically whether or not BAART would provide
22 services at a reduced cost. After BAART responded, the CITY OF CONCORD
23 informed BAART in writing on or about June 8, 2015, that its use would be a
24 “medical clinic” within the meaning of the City’s Development Code, and not a
25 “medical office.” Therefore, the use would not be permitted at the Parkside Drive
26 location.
27 29. As a result of this notice, BAART searched for another site where a
28 “medical clinic” would be permitted as a matter of right within the City of

NO.
COMPLAINT 6
 Case 3:18-cv-04652-LB Document 1 Filed 08/02/18 Page 7 of 14

1 Concord. BAART spent over two years searching for an alternative site that
2 would be both available and adequate and where its use would be permitted by the
3 CITY OF CONCORD.
4 30. In February, 2016 the Concord Community and Economic
5 Development Department confirmed again in writing in connection with
6 BAART’s identification of an apparently available property that BAART
7 PROGRAM’s use is a “medical clinic” within the meaning of the Development
8 Code. However, the selected site was subsequently unavailable.
9 31. On or about July 5, 2017 BAART submitted an official form
10 (“Zoning Compliance Fact Sheet”) to the Community and Economic Development
11 Department with regard to a third site, 2152-58 Solano Way, Concord, known as a
12 portion of “Solano Plaza.”
13 32. Later on or about July 5, 2017, the Concord Community and
14 Economic Development Department responded in writing that the 2152-58 Solano
15 Way address and parcel is zoned “neighborhood commercial” and a “medical
16 clinic” is a permitted use and allowed to occupy up to 20% gross area of a
17 shopping center or 20% street frontage of one building.
18 33. Based on the Community and Economic Development Department’s
19 written assurance that Solano Plaza BAART PROGRAM’s use is permitted,
20 subject to the two conditions specified, plaintiff ADDICTION RESEARCH AND
21 TREATMENT entered into a lease on or about October 17, 2017, for the Solano
22 Plaza site at 2152-58 Solano Way, Concord, California. Rent payments
23 commenced on April 15, 2018.
24 34. As a result of entering into the lease and in reliance on the
25 representation of the CITY OF CONCORD plaintiffs entered into contracts and
26 drew plans for improving the site and for the issuance of necessary and
27 appropriate building permits.
28

NO.
COMPLAINT 7
 Case 3:18-cv-04652-LB Document 1 Filed 08/02/18 Page 8 of 14

1 35. In mid-November, 2017 residents of Concord contacted the CITY OF

2 CONCORD complaining about the proposed use in their neighborhood. Their
3 objections were directed against the patients who would be treated at the clinic,
4 their disability as former drug users, and motivated by stereotypes, prejudice, and
5 unfounded fear of perceived threats to the safety of the neighborhood surrounding
6 the site.
7 36. On or about November 17, 2017 defendant ANDREA OUSE, the
8 director of Community and Economic Development, sent a letter on behalf of the
9 CITY OF CONCORD to the owner of the Solano Plaza site stating that the
10 Community and Economic Development Department had “recently learned that a
11 tenant space had been leased to BAYMARK HEALH.
12 37. Defendant OUSE, acting within the course and scope of her authority
13 and as the policy maker for the CITY OF CONCORD, issued a formal
14 determination saying that BAART’s use is not a “medical clinic,” but it is a “social
15 service facility, community organization”:
16 After considering the general description of proposed uses and taking
into account a similar situation that I experienced in a different
17 community, we have determined that BayMark’s operation would be
best classified as a “social service facility” use, . . . A social service
18 facility would be subject to an Administrative Permit in the
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning district, ....
19
38. The Development Code defines a “social service facility, community
20
organization” as
21
a non-commercial facility that provides services of activities
22 undertaken to advance the welfare of citizens in need, typically run by
a nonprofit organization, a public agency, or by a contract with a
23 public agency.
24 This classification may include supporting office uses,
supporting medical office or health clinic uses, supporting vocational
25 or trade training, childcare services, supporting personal services,
nonmedical substance abuse recovery and counseling services, and/or
26 a food and goods distribution facility. . . .
27 39. Issuance of an administrative permit is at the discretion of the
28 Community and Economic Development Department and is subject to appeal by

NO.
COMPLAINT 8
 Case 3:18-cv-04652-LB Document 1 Filed 08/02/18 Page 9 of 14

1 any member of the public to the City of Concord Planning Commission and then
2 to the City Council.
3 40. The Solano Plaza site is the only adequate property presently
4 available in Central Contra Costa County at an affordable price, which meets the
5 specific needs of BAART and its patients.
6 41. There is no location within the City of Concord where a “social
7 service facility, community organization” is permitted as a matter of right.
8 42. Following defendant OUSE’s letter of November 17, 2017, BAART
9 and representatives of the defendant CITY OF CONCORD entered into
10 negotiations to agree upon a mutually acceptable resolution which would allow
11 BAART to use the site as a methadone clinic. However, after several months the
12 parties were unable to reach an agreement.
13 43. The location at 2152-58 Solano Way does not present a significant
14 risk to health and safety of the community. In fact, the use will save lives, prevent
15 crime, and reduce the risks associated with opioid use.
16 44. The determination by the CITY OF CONCORD and ANDREA
17 OUSE have proximately caused actual injury and damage to plaintiffs BAART
18 PROGRAMS, BAYMARK HEALTH, AND ADDICTION RESEARCH AND
19 TREATMENT, including but not limited to, rent payments to the owner of the
20 property at 2152-58, lost income, and increased construction costs. Plaintiffs
21 anticipate that further delay will cause them to suffer additional injury and incur
22 additional damages in an amount to be proved at trial.
23
REQUISITES FOR RELIEF
24
45. An actual controversy exists:
25
Plaintiffs submit that defendants’ formal determination prohibiting use of
26
the Solano Plaza site as a methadone clinic as a matter of right violates federal
27
28

NO.
COMPLAINT 9
 Case 3:18-cv-04652-LB Document 1 Filed 08/02/18 Page 10 of 14

1 law. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendant contends that its acts are
2 consistent with federal law.
3 46. Plaintiffs and the patients they intend to serve will suffer irreparable
4 harm on account of discrimination due to disability. Absent relief from this court,
5 patients who would be treated by plaintiffs’ clinic will suffer irreparable injury in
6 that they will be unable to obtain methadone treatment in Central Contra Costa
7 County or from any other location. The patients will suffer from disease and
8 injury, up to and including death, as well as mental illness, lost employment, lost
9 sources of income, lost education, lost family stability, and loss of the possibility
10 to live as law abiding productive members of society. They will additionally
11 suffer stigma and discrimination on account of their disability.
12 47. Plaintiffs presently have no adequate remedy at law to redress the
13 continuing violation of their rights and the rights of disabled persons associated
14 with them.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
15
(Intentional Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act)
16
48. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-47.
17
49. Title II of The Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.§§ 12131 et
18
seq., and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 35.101 et seq., prohibit a
19
public entity from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities.
20
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act also prohibits a public entity from
21
denying qualified individuals with disabilities participation in, or denying the
22
benefits of, its services, programs or activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
23
50. The purpose of the Act is to provide a “clear and comprehensive
24
national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with
25
disabilities and for the integration of persons with disabilities into the economic
26
and social mainstream of American Life.” (S.Rep. No. 116, 101st Cong., 1st Sess.
27
at 2 (1989).
28

NO.
COMPLAINT 10
 Case 3:18-cv-04652-LB Document 1 Filed 08/02/18 Page 11 of 14

1 51. Defendant CITY OF CONCORD is a “public entity” within the

2 meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131(1)(A) and (B).
3 52. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to zoning
4 activities of public entities.
5 53. The patients who would be treated by the BAART clinic in the City
6 of Concord are “qualified individual[s] with a disability” within the meaning of 42
7 U.S.C. §§ 12131(2), 12210.
8 54. Defendant CITY OF CONCORD and defendant OUSE’s formal
9 determination and interpretation of the CITY OF CONCORD Community and
10 Economic Development Code is motivated by stereotypes, prejudice, and
11 unfounded fear. It violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act by
12 prohibiting the use of 2152-58 Solano Way as a methadone clinic by intentionally
13 discriminating against plaintiffs for their association with qualified individuals
14 with disabilities and denies them “the benefits of the services, programs or
15 activities of a public entity,” by reason of such disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
16 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
17 (Discriminatory Impact Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act)
18 55. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-47.
19 56. Defendant CITY OF CONCORD and defendant OUSE’s formal
20 determination and interpretation of the CITY OF CONCORD Community and
21 Economic Development Code violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities
22 Act by prohibiting the use of 2152-58 Solano Way as a methadone clinic due to
23 the discriminating impact against plaintiffs for their association with qualified
24 individuals with disabilities and denies them “the benefits of the services,
25 programs or activities of a public entity,” by reason of such disabilities. 42 U.S.C.
26 § 12132.
27
28

NO.
COMPLAINT 11
 Case 3:18-cv-04652-LB Document 1 Filed 08/02/18 Page 12 of 14

1 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 (Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act)
3 57. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-56.
4 58. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and its
5 implementing regulations, 24 C.F.R. § 8.3 et seq. prohibit a program or activity
6 which receives federal funds from discriminating against qualified individuals
7 with disabilities. It also prohibits a program or activity from excluding qualified
8 individuals with disabilities from benefits. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
9 59. Because defendant CITY OF CONCORD distributes or receives
10 federal financial assistance, it is covered as a program or activity under the Act, 29
11 U.S.C. § 794(b), and considered a recipient within the meaning of the Act, 24
12 C.F.R. § 8.3.
13 60. The patients who would be treated by BAART are “qualified
14 individual[s] with a disability” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 706(8).
15 61. Defendant CITY OF CONCORD’s and defendant OUSE’s formal
16 determination and interpretation of the CITY OF CONCORD Community and
17 Economic Development Code violates the Rehabilitation Act and its implementing
18 regulations by prohibiting the use of 2152-58 Solano Way as a methadone clinic
19 because it discriminates against qualified individuals with disabilities. It also
20 “denies them the benefits of any program or activity receiving federal financial
21 assistance” by reason of such disabilities. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
22
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
23
(Violation of Due Process and Equal Protection of the Law)
24
62. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-47.
25
63. This claim is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
26
64. Defendant CITY OF CONCORD’s and defendant OUSE’s formal
27
determination and interpretation of the CITY OF CONCORD Community
28

NO.
COMPLAINT 12
 Case 3:18-cv-04652-LB Document 1 Filed 08/02/18 Page 13 of 14

1 Development Code is arbitrary in that it is based on irrational prejudices against,

2 and perceptions of, methadone patients and is not rationally related to any
3 legitimate governmental interest. It also treats methadone patients differently
4 without adequate legal justification. It therefore violates the Due Process and
5 Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
6 Constitution.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
7
(Violation of California Law)
8
65. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-64.
9
66. Under California law it is unlawful to discriminate because of
10
disability or the perception that a person is disabled. Cal. Civil Code §§ 51, 53,
11
54, 54.1; Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12955(l) and 12955(m).
12
67. The patients who would be treated at the BAART clinic are disabled
13
within the meaning of Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12926, 12926.1.
14
68. The acts of defendants are discriminatory in violation of Cal. Civil
15
Code §§ 51, 53, 54, 54.1 and Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12955(l) and 12955(m).
16
69. On or about May 16, 2018 plaintiff ADDICTION RESEARCH AND
17
TREATMENT presented a government claim for damages to the CITY OF
18
CONCORD. The claim was rejected by operation of law.
19
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
20
(Declaratory Judgment -- 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a))
21
70. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every
22
allegation of paragraphs 1 through 64.
23
71. An actual controversy exists between the parties.
24
72. The parties are entitled to a declaration of their rights and liabilities.
25
26
27
28

NO.
COMPLAINT 13
 Case 3:18-cv-04652-LB Document 1 Filed 08/02/18 Page 14 of 14

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:
3 1. For a declaration that defendant CITY OF CONCORD and ANDREA
4 OUSE’s acts prohibiting the use of 2152-58 Solano Way, Concord, California are
5 unlawful.
6 2. For preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining defendants, their
7 successors, agents, employees, and all persons working in concert or participation
8 with them, from prohibiting the use of 2152-58 Solano Way, Concord, California
9 as a methadone treatment clinic or otherwise interfering with the use and
10 possession of 2152-58 Solano Way, Concord, California as a methadone treatment
11 clinic.
12 3. For compensatory damages according to proof.
13 4. For expedited proceedings.
14 5. For all appropriate orders necessary to preserve the court’s
15 jurisdiction.
16 6. For costs and reasonable attorneys fees.
17 7. For such further relief as the court deems proper.
18
19 Dated: August 2, 2018 LAW OFFICES OF AMITAI SCHWARTZ
20
By: /s/ Amitai Schwartz
21 Amitai Schwartz
Attorney for Plaintiffs
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

NO.
COMPLAINT 14
JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 06/17) Case 3:18-cv-04652-LB Document 1-1 Filed 08/02/18 Page 1 of 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law,
except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of
Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
BAART PROGRAMS, INC.; BAYMARK HEALTH SERVICES, INC, CITY OF CONCORD, CALIFORNIA
ADDITION RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, INC. ANDREA OUSE
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff SAN FRANCISCO County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Amitai Schwartz, 2000 Powell St., Ste 1286, Emeryville, CA
94608 (510) 597-1775
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
PTF DEF PTF DEF
1 U.S. Government Plaintiff 3 Federal Question Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
2 U.S. Government Defendant 4 Diversity of Business In Another State
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure of 422 Appeal 28 USC § 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine Property 21 USC § 881 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury – Product
130 Miller Act Liability 690 Other § 157 § 3729(a))
315 Airplane Product Liability
140 Negotiable Instrument 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
320 Assault, Libel & Slander LABOR PROPERTY RIGHTS
150 Recovery of Pharmaceutical Personal 410 Antitrust
330 Federal Employers’ 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 820 Copyrights
Overpayment Of Injury Product Liability 430 Banks and Banking
Liability 720 Labor/Management 830 Patent
Veteran’s Benefits 368 Asbestos Personal Injury 450 Commerce
340 Marine Relations 835 Patent─Abbreviated New
151 Medicare Act Product Liability
345 Marine Product Liability 740 Railway Labor Act Drug Application 460 Deportation
152 Recovery of Defaulted PERSONAL PROPERTY 470 Racketeer Influenced &
350 Motor Vehicle 751 Family and Medical 840 Trademark
Student Loans (Excludes 370 Other Fraud Corrupt Organizations
355 Motor Vehicle Product Leave Act
Veterans) 371 Truth in Lending SOCIAL SECURITY
Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation 480 Consumer Credit
153 Recovery of 380 Other Personal Property 861 HIA (1395ff)
360 Other Personal Injury 791 Employee Retirement 490 Cable/Sat TV
Overpayment Damage Income Security Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
of Veteran’s Benefits 362 Personal Injury -Medical
Malpractice 385 Property Damage Product 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
160 Stockholders’ Suits Liability IMMIGRATION
864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
190 Other Contract 462 Naturalization
CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
195 Contract Product Liability Application
440 Other Civil Rights HABEAS CORPUS 893 Environmental Matters
196 Franchise 465 Other Immigration FEDERAL TAX SUITS
441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Actions 895 Freedom of Information
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or
REAL PROPERTY 442 Employment Act
510 Motions to Vacate Defendant)
210 Land Condemnation Sentence 896 Arbitration
443 Housing/ 871 IRS–Third Party 26 USC
220 Foreclosure Accommodations 530 General § 7609 899 Administrative Procedure
445 Amer. w/Disabilities– Act/Review or Appeal of
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 535 Death Penalty
Employment Agency Decision
240 Torts to Land OTHER
446 Amer. w/Disabilities–Other 950 Constitutionality of State
245 Tort Product Liability 540 Mandamus & Other Statutes
290 All Other Real Property 448 Education
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee–
Conditions of
Confinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District (specify) Litigation–Transfer Litigation–Direct File

VI. CAUSE OF Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 U.S.C. 12132
ACTION
Brief description of cause:
Discrimination in Zoning Against a Drug Treatment Clinic
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S), JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

IF ANY (See instructions):
IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2)
(Place an “X” in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE

DATE 08/02/2018 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /s/ Amitai Schwartz

Print Save As... Reset

JS-CAND 44 (rev. 07/16) Case 3:18-cv-04652-LB Document 1-1 Filed 08/02/18 Page 2 of 2

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-CAND 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet. The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and
service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial
Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is
submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I. a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.)
c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section “(see attachment).”

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires that jurisdictions be shown in
pleadings. Place an “X” in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
(1) United States plaintiff. Jurisdiction based on 28 USC §§ 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
(2) United States defendant. When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box.
(3) Federal question. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code
takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
(4) Diversity of citizenship. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above.
Mark this section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the six boxes.
(1) Original Proceedings. Cases originating in the United States district courts.
(2) Removed from State Court. Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 USC § 1441. When the
petition for removal is granted, check this box.
(3) Remanded from Appellate Court. Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
(4) Reinstated or Reopened. Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
(5) Transferred from Another District. For cases transferred under Title 28 USC § 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
(6) Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 USC
§ 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
(8) Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. Check this box when a multidistrict litigation case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
Please note that there is no Origin Code 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statute.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC § 553. Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is used to identify related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
IX. Divisional Assignment. If the Nature of Suit is under Property Rights or Prisoner Petitions or the matter is a Securities Class Action, leave this
section blank. For all other cases, identify the divisional venue according to Civil Local Rule 3-2: “the county in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions which give rise to the claim occurred or in which a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.”
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.