1

TERRY D. STARK
$/3{1/ Jb'$3f:(,.J
LAW OFFICES OF TERRY D. STARK
107 California Avenue
Oakdale, California 95361

DEC 1 6 2014

Attorney for Plaintiff

4

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORN.,Cj\SE

COUNTY OF MONTEREY
1JATE:

~oMw@fuNFERE
- \l

- c::;

TIME: 9:00AM
~ l-{
COURTROOM: _ _ _, _ _+--

GERlT SAND; COBBLESTONE

BAKERY, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP

Plaintiff,

Case No.
Date:
Time:
Judge:
Department:

vs.
10
11

CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA;

DOES 1 THROUGH 20

12

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Defendant.

13
14

Plaint

fs GERlT SAND and COBBLESTONE BAKERY, A SOLE

15

PROPRIETORSHIP, for their Complaint against Defendants CITY OF

16

CARMEL BY THE SEA and DOES 1 through 20:

17
INTRODUCTION

18

19
20

1.

Upon information and belief, Defendant CARMEL BY THE

21

SEA, is a resident of and located in Monterey County, State of

22

California, and, in some way owns or controls or manages the

23

Carmel Artisan Food Experience (hereinafter, "Event" or "Farmers

24

Market").

25

CE

2.

Defendant CARMEL BY THE SEA is a municipal corporation

ifornia and, at all times

26

established within the State of

27

relevant to this action/ governed a certain area as a municipal

28

corporation for the purpose of serving and governing the

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1

residents therein.

of government a

The City of CARMEL BY THE SEA has as its form

ty council and city administrator.

3.

While controlling and operating its Farmers Market, the

CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA operated the market through the West

Coast Farmers Market Association, as its Agent (hereinafter,

"Agent.")

9
10

4.

Plaintiff GERlT SAND is a resident of the State of

California with residence in the County of Stanislaus.

5.

Plaintiff GERlT SAND

the sole proprietor of the

11

bakery, a business located

12

offices located at 6601 Third Street, Riverbank, California

13

95367.

14

6.

Stanislaus County with its primary

The true names and capacities, whether individual,

15

corporate, associate, or otherwise of Doe 1 through Doe 20,

16

inclusive are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue these

17

defendants by these fictitious names and will seek leave of the

18

Court to amend this Complaint to show the true names and

19

capacit

20

7.

when they are ascertained.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon,

21

allege that each of the Defendants designated as Doe 1 through

22

Doe 20, inclusive, is legally responsible in some manner for the

23

circumstances and happenings referred to in this Complaint, and

24

caused damages, and Plaintiffs will seek leave of the Court to

25

amend this Complaint to show these Defendants' responsibility

26

when the same has been ascertained and to include appropriate

27

charging allegations.

28

8.

Venue is proper based on California Code of Civil

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
2

Procedure Section 394, as the allegations contained herein

occurred within the County of Monterey, State of California, and

are against the City of Carmel by the Sea.

proper based on California Code of Civil Procedure Section

410.10.

Jurisdiction is

GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7
8

9.

The City of CARMEL BY THE SEA, California, has directly

10

or indirectly or through an Agent or through its governing body

11

exercised control over the operation of Farmers Market and the

12

establishment of and maintenance of and performance of contracts

13

between the Farmers Market and the vendors who operate booths at

14

the Farmers Market.

15

10.

The Defendant has directly or indirectly or through an

16

Agent or through its governing body exercised control over and

17

established the existence of the Farmers Market through City

18

Ordinance.

19

11.

(Copy attached as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1.)

The CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA contracted with the West

20

Coast Farmers Market Association to operate its Farmers Market as

21

its Agent.

22

12.

The West Coast Farmers Market Association, acting as

23

the Agent for the CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA, contracted orally

24

with vendors, including Plaintiffs.

25

13.

Plaintiffs formerly held a contract with the Farmers

26

Market to operate a booth within the market.

In order to fulfill

27

the contract with the City of Carmel, California, and operate

28

their booth in the Farmers Market.

Plaintiffs had to obtain from

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

and pay for a permit from the County of Monterey, State of

California.
14.

t money or property as a result

The Plaintiffs have

of Defendants' failure to comply with well-established common

law, statutory law, and constitutional law.

15.

Defendant refused to honor the contract that had been

executed between it and Plaintiffs.

16.

In its initial agreement with Plaintiffs, Defendant

agreed through

10

operate a booth within the Farmers Market for the purpose of

11

selling food items, specifically, baked goods, within the Farmers

12

Market operation.

13

14

17.

Plaintiffs paid Farmers Market dues for space rental in

the amount of $50.00 each week.

18.

15

16

Agent(s} to permit Plaintiffs to establish and

Plaintiffs paid $741.00 for their required health

permit issued by the Monterey County Health Department.

17

19.

Defendant breached its contract with Plaintif

by

18

failing to permit the Plaintiffs to operate their booth within

19

the Farmers Market.

20.

20

At some point in time, Defendant decided that

21

Plaintiffs and others would not be permitted to continue their

22

contracts with the Farmers Market

23

others, did not have businesses with physical storefronts in the

24

downtown area within the city limits of the CITY OF CARMEL BY THE

25

SEA.

26

21.

those Plaintiffs, and

As a result of the decision of Defendant through its

27

city council to discontinue permitting Plaintif

, and others, to

28

continue utilizing the facilities of the Farmers Market if the

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
4

Plaintiffs, and others, did not have physical storefronts in the

downtown area within the CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA, Plaintiffs,

and other businesses, were terminated from operations within the

Farmers Market.

22.

Plaintiffs, and others, were thereby discriminated

against when Defendants acted in favor of their local businesses

to the exclusion of Plaintiffs, and others, who had already

contracted with the CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA through the Farmers

Market for places of operation within the Farmers Market.

10

23.

Such an act of exclusion results in the removal of

11

persons, businesses, and products from the chain of commerce,

12

both intrastate and interstate.

13

14

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

15

BREACH OF CONTRACT

16
24.

17

18

Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 23,

inclusive, as fully set forth herein.

19

25.

Defendants entered into an oral agreement on or about

20

May 5, 2014, with Plaintiffs through the Defendants' Agent

21

whereby Defendants would permit Plaintiffs to operate booths

22

within the Farmers Market located in and operated for the benefit

23

of the CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA.

24

26.

On July 1, 2014, the CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA passed a

25

new ordinance restricting persons and businesses from selling

26

products in the Farmers Market who do not have fixed structures

27

or storefronts in the downtown business district of CARMEL BY THE

28

SEA.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
5

27.

Therefore, the CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA purposely

abrogated its contract with the Plaintiffs and failed to perform

its portion of the contract by not providing spaces for the

operation of a booth in the Farmers Market owned by the CITY OF

CARMEL BY THE SEA and operated by its Agent.

6
7

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

INDUCING BREACH OF CONTRACT

10
11
12

28.

Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 27,

inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

26.

Defendants entered into an oral agreement on or about

13

May 5, 2014, with Plaintiffs through the Defendants' Agent

14

whereby

15

within the Farmers Market located in and operated

16

of the CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA.

17

27.

Defendants would permit Plaintif

to operate booths
the benefit

Defendants, through Defendants' Agent, were fully aware

18

of the existence

19

OF CARMEL BY THE SEA, in the passing of an ordinance preventing

20

anyone except local businesses with "brick and mortar"

21

storefronts in the CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA from engaging in

22

business within the confines of the Farmers Market, demonstrated

23

that it intended to limit or eliminate competition from outside

24

the CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA and, thereby, cause a breach of any

25

existing contract with those businesses that were not of local

26

origin.

27
28

28.

the contract, and by the action of the CITY

The Defendant CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA by passing that

ordinance caused the Farmers Market to breach

s contract with

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

6

1
2

Plaintiffs.
29.

The said breach was caused by Defendant's wrongful and

unjustified conduct in the passage of the ordinance excluding

outside vendors, even the ones already permitted to sell goods at

the Farmers Market.

30.

Plaintiffs suffered damages, both as to current income

and as to the costs incurred in the establishment of their

businesses in the Farmers Market.

10

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

11

NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ADVANTAGE

12
13
14
15

31.

Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 30,

inclusive, as though fully set forth

32.

in.

The Defendant CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA had a duty of

16

due care toward the Plaintiffs in that it had, through the

17

Farmers Market/ established a contract with the Plaintiffs that

18

would result in a prospective continuing economic relationship

19

between the Farmers Market and the Plaintiffs.

20

were acting in a manner in which they depended upon this

21

relationship to continue.

22

33.

The Plaintiffs

The CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA breached its duty of due

23

care to the Plaintiffs by passing an ordinance excluding the

24

Plaintiffs from the Farmers Market.

25

34.

By excluding the Plaintiffs from the Farmers Market, it

26

was foreseeable that the Plaintiffs would suffer economic harm

27

and harm to the Plaintiffs reputation.

28

35.

The exclusion of the Plaintiffs by the Defendant

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
7

actually caused harm to the Plaintiffs.

36.

The Plaintiffs, as a result of being excluded from the

Farmers Market, were injured in an amount to be determined by the

Court.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

6
7

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, GERIT SAND and COBBLESTONE BAKERY, A SOLE

PROPRIETORSHIP, pray for judgment against Defendant, CITY OF

10

CARMEL BY THE SEA, as set forth below.

11

1.

For general damages according to proof;

12

2.

For special damages according to proof;

13

3.

For an injunction against Defendant prohibiting them

14

from engaging in conduct complained of herein;

4.

For interest upon damages assessed at the statutory

17

5.

For the costs of this action; and

18

6.

For such other relief as the Court deems proper.

15
16

rate;

19

20
21

Dated this 16th day of

22

December, 2014

23

24

LAW OFFICES OF TERRY D.

25

STARK

26

107 California Avenue

27

Oakdale, California 95361

28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

8