Labor date set

Oral arguments in a lawsuit seeking to force the closure of the Laguna Beach Day Labor Center were set for Nov. 16 on Oct. 1, during the first hearing held in the year-old case.

Plaintiffs Eileen Garcia and husband George Riviere, of Laguna Beach, were in the Orange County Superior Court at the Central Justice Center in Santa Ana to witness their suit’s first hearing before Judge Gregory Munoz.

Attorneys on both sides requested the Nov. 16 date to argue the case and also agreed to prepare a list of stipulated — or agreed-upon — facts to expedite the legal process.

Judicial Watch, a conservative group, had filed the lawsuit on behalf of Garcia and Riviere in early October, 2006. The conservative law group said its case aims to force the Day Labor Center to shut down, alleging breaches of federal and state laws that prohibit hiring or aiding illegal immigrants.

According to California law, taxpayers have a right to challenge government expenditures that may be illegal or wasteful, and the suit accuses Laguna Beach’s support of the center of being both.

“We’re contending that any money spent by the city is both illegal and wasteful,” Jackson said.

The city has spent taxpayer funds to install portable toilets, a drinking fountain and other amenities for the workers at the site.

The city also pays the center’s rent to let it stay on the Caltrans-owned strip of property along Laguna Canyon Road where it has stood for more than a decade.

It is illegal under the municipal code to solicit work anyplace else in Laguna Beach.

Judicial Watch attorney Candice Jackson, lead attorney in the suit, said if both sides agree to facts, the judge can simply make the decision on whether the city has broken the law or not, thereby streamlining the proceedings.

Garcia, an anti-illegal immigration activist, has staged numerous protests against the Day Labor Center and has asked the City Council to close it down.

The list of facts will be submitted to Munoz Oct. 5. Opening briefs are scheduled to be filed Oct. 19, with responding arguments filed Nov. 2.

Garcia declined to comment on the suit.