Monday, April 4, 2005
Coalition Lacks Standing to Challenge Statutes as Discriminatory Against Men—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A men’s rights group was properly rebuffed in its attempt to upset a spate of statutes which it claimed unconstitutionally favor women, the Court of Appeal for this district has ruled.
Div. One said in Wednesday’s unpublished opinion by Acting Justice Steven Suzukawa that the Coalition of Free Men and its Los Angeles chapter president, Marc Angelucci, lacked standing to sue.
Suzukawa, on loan from the Los Angeles Superior Court, recited:
“Appellants claim the targeted statutes impermissibly include only women and not men in domestic violence protection, give visitation rights only to incarcerated mothers and not fathers, create job training only for women and not men in nontraditional employment, provide a special office and ombudsperson only for women and not men veterans, and create affirmative action goals only for women.”
The appellants contended they had “citizen standing.” Suzukawa responded that because “[n]either Angelucci nor CFM, on behalf of its members, claims a personal interest, or involvement with, any of the targeted statutes,” they have no such standing.
Although Angelucci is a California taxpayer, Suzukawa said, he may not maintain a taxpayer’s action. The jurist explained:
“Appellants’ pleading does not allege any actual or threatened expenditure of public funds. Accordingly, appellants have not established Angelucci’s qualification to assert taxpayer standing.”
The opinion affirms the judgment of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Malcolm Mackey.
Morse Mehrban for Plaintiffs represented the appellants and Deputy Attorneys General Christopher E. Krueger and Susan R. Oie acted for the state.
Copyright 2005, Metropolitan News Company