Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, l.l.p.

2029 CENTURY PARK EAST

SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CA 90067

Document Prepared

on Recycled Paper

DENNIS A. BARLOW, State Bar No. 96813

City Attorney

CITY OF BURBANK, CALIFORNIA

275 East Olive Avenue

Burbank, CA 91510

Telephone: (818) 238-5700

Facsimile: (818) 238-5724

PERRY M. ROSEN

PETER J. KIRSCH

W. ERIC PILSK

AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, L.L.P.

1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

Telephone: (202) 887-4000

Facsimile: (202) 887-4288

2029 Century Park East

Suite 2400

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Telephone: (310) 229-1000

Facsimile: (310) 229-1001

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

CITY OF BURBANK, CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CITY OF BURBANK, CALIFORNIA, a

municipal corporation,

Plaintiff, vs.

BURBANK-GLENDALE-PASADENA

AIRPORT AUTHORITY, a joint powers

agency,

Defendant.

Case No. BC259852

Date: April 17, 2002

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept: 47

Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, l.l.p.

2029 CENTURY PARK EAST

SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CA 90067

Please take notice that Plaintiff the City of Burbank hereby requests the Court to enter

default judgment in favor of the City of Burbank and against the Defendant Burbank-Glendale-

Pasadena Airport Authority.

In support of its Request, Plaintiff submits a Summary of the Case and Memorandum in

Support of Request for Default Judgment by the Court, the Declarations of Susan M. Georgino

and Margarita Campos, a completed and executed Judicial Council Form 982(a)(6), including

Declarations pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 585.5 and 587 and a Declaration of

Nonmilitary Status, and a [Proposed] Default Judgment. All of the above-listed documents are

filed together with this Request pursuant to Local Rules 9.10 and 9.11.

The Request for Default Judgment by the Court is based on the failure of the Defendant

to file an Answer or other response to the First Amended Complaint in this matter by January

24, 2002, as ordered to by the Court’s Order dated January 14, 2002. Accordingly, and for the

reasons set forth in the Summary of the Case and Memorandum in Support of Request for

Default Judgment by the Court and supporting Declarations of Susan M. Georgino and

Margarita Campos, Plaintiff the City of Burbank respectfully requests a judgment declaring

that:

A. Measure A is an impermissible restriction on the power that the Legislature

delegated exclusively to the Burbank City Council to make decisions pursuant to

PUC § 21661.6 in the City of Burbank; and

B. Paragraphs 3 and 7 of Measure A, which require that two-thirds of the electorate

approve the financing and/or construction of an airport terminal and any

amendment or modification of Measure A and mandate the time of election, are

illegal because they conflict with the California Constitution and election law of

statewide concern mandating approval of initiative measures by simple majority

vote and allowing the city council to schedule the election; and

C. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Measure A are beyond the initiative power

reserved to the people in California Constitution Article II, Sections 8 and 11,

because they embrace administrative and other non-legislative matters,

Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, l.l.p.

2029 CENTURY PARK EAST

SUITE 2400

LOS ANGELES, CA 90067

Document Prepared

on Recycled Paper

constitute indirect legislation and restrict the future exercise of legislative

power; and

D. Paragraph 4(h) of Measure A conflicts with the requirements of CEQA, which is

a statute of statewide concern, and is therefore void; and

E. Various critical terms and provisions of Measure A are unconstitutionally and

otherwise unduly vague, thereby rendering Measure A void; and

F. Because Paragraph 4 of Measure A requires satisfaction of any or all of the

conditions set forth in Paragraphs 4(a) – 4(l), many of which do not or may not

substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest in regulating some

aspect of various projects presented to the City, and because such provisions are

overly broad and strip the City of the discretion necessary to ensure that the

conditions set forth in Paragraphs 4(a) – 4(l) of Measure A can be applied in a

manner that does, in fact, advance legitimate governmental interests, Paragraph

4 should be deemed to be in excess of the City’s powers, thereby rendering it

void; and

G. There [does] [does not] exist specific provisions of Measure A that are both

legally valid and severable from the illegal provisions of Measure A such that

they can be enforced by the City in a fair, equitable and legal manner.

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of February, 2002 by:

DENNIS A. BARLOW

City Attorney

275 East Olive Avenue

City Of Burbank, California

Burbank, CA 91510

Telephone: (818) 238-5700

Facsimile: (818) 238-5724

PERRY M. ROSEN

PETER J. KIRSCH

W. ERIC PILSK

AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER

& FELD, L.L.P.

1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

Telephone: (202) 887-4000

Facsimile: (202) 887-4288

Attorneys for Plaintiff, CITY OF BURBANK, CALIFORNIA