Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A fatal accident occurred in 2016 when a bicyclist, Jonathan Tansavatdi, collided with a turning truck at an intersection in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The bicycle lane on Hawthorne Boulevard ended before the intersection, forcing cyclists to share the roadway. Jonathan’s mother, Betty Tansavatdi, sued the City, alleging that the intersection constituted a dangerous condition of public property and that the City failed to adequately warn of this danger.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially granted summary judgment for the City based on the affirmative defense of design immunity under Government Code section 830.6. The trial court found the City had established all elements of design immunity regarding the absence of a bicycle lane. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the finding of design immunity but remanded the case for consideration of the failure to warn claim. The California Supreme Court, in Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639, held that design immunity does not categorically preclude failure to warn claims and remanded the matter, leaving open whether design immunity applies if warnings were part of an approved design.Upon remand, the City renewed its motion for summary judgment, arguing that all warning signs and markings at the intersection were part of the 2009 approved design plans. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, held that when a public entity has provided some warning of a dangerous condition as part of an approved and reasonable design, complaints about the adequacy of that warning fall within the scope of design immunity. The court affirmed summary judgment for the City and upheld the award of expert fees, finding the City’s section 998 settlement offer valid. View "Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes" on Justia Law

Following the passage of Proposition 50, which revised congressional district maps in California, a community group in Riverside County alleged a discrepancy in the number of ballots counted versus ballots cast during the 2025 special election. Acting on the group’s report, the county sheriff’s department obtained search warrants from the Riverside County Superior Court and seized large quantities of ballots and election materials. The county registrar defended the official tally and explained the discrepancy at a public meeting. Despite the Attorney General’s request for a pause to review the investigation, the sheriff’s department advanced their search and began counting ballots, only halting after direct communication from the Attorney General.The Attorney General issued formal directives to the sheriff, instructing him to pause the investigation, preserve all seized materials, and provide case records for review. The sheriff initially did not respond, began counting ballots, then paused the count and secured the materials. Subsequent communications from the Attorney General reiterated these directives and requested records. After further seizures by the sheriff’s department, the Attorney General initiated litigation, seeking a writ of mandate in the California Court of Appeal, which denied relief on procedural grounds. The Attorney General then sought review in the Supreme Court of California.The Supreme Court of California held that the Attorney General, under the state Constitution and Government Code section 12560, possesses the authority to give binding directions to sheriffs regarding specific investigations when necessary to ensure uniform and adequate enforcement of state laws. The court concluded the directives issued in this case were within the Attorney General’s lawful authority and sufficiently specific. It granted writ relief, ordering the sheriff and department to comply with the Attorney General’s instructions to pause investigative actions, retain seized records (with certain exceptions), and provide requested materials. Each party was directed to bear its own costs. View "Bonta v. Bianco" on Justia Law

A bystander was injured in June 2023 when a police dog owned by a municipality mistakenly attacked him during a pursuit. The injured party, seeking damages for his injuries, timely submitted a statutory notice of claim to the municipality. In the notice, he offered to settle his personal injury claim for “one hundred thousand dollars ($250,000),” creating an internal inconsistency between the written and numerical amounts. The municipality did not accept the offer within the 60-day statutory period.After the offer was not accepted, the injured party filed a complaint in the Superior Court in Gila County. The municipality moved to dismiss, asserting that the notice failed to comply with Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-821.01(A)’s requirement to state a specific amount for which the claim can be settled. The Superior Court treated the motion as one for summary judgment and granted it, finding the notice insufficient. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, reversed, holding that contract law principles should be used to resolve the inconsistency, and concluding that the written amount controlled, thus satisfying the statute.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case. It held that strict compliance with the statutory requirement is necessary: a notice of claim must state a single, specific settlement amount that leaves no room for doubt. The court rejected the use of contract interpretation principles or extrinsic evidence to resolve conflicting figures in the notice, emphasizing that the municipality has no obligation to investigate or seek clarification. Because the notice contained two different amounts, it did not comply with § 12-821.01(A). The Supreme Court vacated the appellate decision and affirmed summary judgment for the municipality. View "TERBORG v TOWN OF PAYSON" on Justia Law

The City of Los Angeles received millions in federal housing grants over a period of years, certifying compliance with federal housing accessibility laws as a condition of those funds. Mei Ling and the Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley (FHC) brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), alleging that the City had falsely represented its compliance with accessibility requirements. The United States later intervened in the case. Separately, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) investigated the City for noncompliance and, after its own findings, entered into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement (VCA) with the City. Under the VCA, the City agreed to spend at least $200 million over ten years to remediate or build accessible housing, but the VCA explicitly excluded the FCA claims at issue in the litigation.The United States District Court for the Central District of California presided over years of discovery and litigation. Eventually, the United States, FHC, and the City agreed to settle the FCA claims for $38,266,989. The district court approved the settlement as fair, adequate, and reasonable, and dismissed all claims against the City, with relators entitled to a statutory share of the settlement proceeds. Mei Ling appealed, arguing that the VCA constituted an “alternate remedy” under the FCA, which would entitle her to a share of the VCA’s value.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the VCA was not an alternate remedy within the meaning of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(5) because it did not take the place of the FCA suit or settlement. The VCA addressed the City’s civil rights violations, not the alleged fraud underlying the FCA action, and expressly carved out the FCA claims. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s approval of the FCA settlement. View "LING V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES" on Justia Law

A family rented military housing located within the Naval Amphibious Base Coronado in California, managed by San Diego Family Housing (SDFH) and Lincoln Military Property Management. During their tenancy, the family experienced repeated water intrusion and mold contamination, which allegedly caused health issues and property damage. After reporting these problems, remediation was attempted, but the family was dissatisfied with the response and subsequent actions. They ultimately vacated the property and brought claims in California state court for negligence and other state law issues against SDFH, Lincoln, and InDepth, a mold remediation company.SDFH and Lincoln removed the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, asserting federal enclave, federal agency, and federal officer jurisdiction. The district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on derivative sovereign immunity and later, after supplemental briefing and a Statement of Interest from the United States, rejected all grounds for federal jurisdiction. The district court found no evidence that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over the property, no sufficient nexus for federal officer removal, and insufficient grounds for federal agency status. The court remanded the case to state court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s remand order after the Supreme Court remanded for consideration in light of Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that no basis for federal jurisdiction existed: (1) federal enclave jurisdiction was not established due to lack of evidence of federal government assent to exclusive jurisdiction; (2) federal officer removal requirements were not satisfied, as defendants were not “acting under” a federal officer; and (3) SDFH did not qualify as a federal agency. The district court’s remand to state court was affirmed. View "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC" on Justia Law

This case stems from a fatal plane crash in which a pilot, Chelsea Brittney Infanger, collided with exhaust stacks owned by a processing plant near the Burley Municipal Airport in Idaho. The stacks, which extended over 100 feet high, were situated within the runway’s approach path and had been the subject of prior regulatory concern. The pilot’s parents brought a wrongful death suit, alleging that the Idaho Department of Transportation’s Division of Aeronautics negligently failed to regulate or mitigate the known risk posed by these stacks, arguing that various statutory, common law, special relationship, and contractual duties compelled the Division to act.After settlements with other defendants, the case proceeded against the Division in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County. The Division moved for summary judgment, contending it owed no individualized duty to the deceased under the Airport Zoning Act, common law, or through a special relationship, and that it was immune under the Idaho Tort Claims Act. The district court agreed, holding that the Division’s statutory duties were general obligations to the public, not specific duties to individual aviators, and found no basis for liability under special relationship or contract theories. The court granted summary judgment to the Division, and the plaintiffs appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s decision. It held that the Airport Zoning Act did not create a tort duty to a particular class of persons, but rather imposed general obligations for public safety, and thus could not support a negligence per se claim. The Court also found that the plaintiffs did not preserve or demonstrate the elements necessary for a special relationship or assumed duty sufficient to impose liability. The Court declined to award attorney fees, but granted costs to the Division. View "Infanger v. State of Idaho, Idaho Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Following significant property damage due to a rainstorm in January 2023, several local government entities in Merced County, including the City of Merced and a school district, filed suit against the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). They alleged that the CDFW’s restrictions on cleaning and maintaining waterways contributed to flooding that caused the damage. Subsequent to this initial complaint, other parties—including homeowners, businesses, and insurers—filed related actions against CDFW, the City, and the County. These cases were ultimately consolidated in Merced County Superior Court.After consolidation, CDFW became the sole nonresident defendant in the case. In late 2025, CDFW sought to transfer the venue out of Merced County, citing Code of Civil Procedure sections 394 and 397, which generally allow for venue changes to guard against local prejudice in actions involving local government plaintiffs and nonresident defendants. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, and the Superior Court of Merced County ruled that venue was proper in Merced County under Government Code section 955.3, which specifically governs actions brought by local agencies against the State of California. The court also found CDFW’s motion untimely.CDFW then petitioned the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, for a writ of mandate to overturn the trial court’s denial of the motion to transfer venue. The Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that Government Code section 955.3 expressly provides that such actions may be tried in the county where the local government plaintiff is situated, notwithstanding any other provision of law. The court concluded that section 955.3 supersedes section 394 and that the Attorney General’s ability to seek a venue change under section 397 is limited to a pre-answer motion, which was not made here. The stay previously issued was lifted, and costs were awarded to the real parties in interest. View "Dept. of Fish & Wildlife v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

In 2025, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors faced significant federal funding cuts for healthcare and social services due to the passage of H.R. 1 by Congress. Anticipating a loss of over $1 billion in funding within five years, the Board declared an emergency and resolved to place a general sales tax measure (Measure A) on the ballot for a special election. The proposed tax was intended to offset the funding shortfall and maintain critical county services. The Board unanimously passed a resolution and urgency ordinance with detailed findings about the impacts of H.R. 1, the necessity for immediate action, and the risks of waiting for the next general election.Plaintiffs, county residents, filed a preelection complaint and petition for writ of mandate in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. They challenged the sufficiency of the emergency declaration under article XIII C, section 2 of the California Constitution and Proposition 218, and the format and impartiality of the ballot question and analysis. After expedited proceedings, the trial court found the emergency declaration valid, denied the writ petition on that ground, and directed modifications to some ballot language. Measure A was subsequently approved by voters.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that the “cases of emergency” clause in article XIII C, section 2 should be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning, permitting local governments to declare emergencies broadly when unforeseen circumstances require immediate action. The court found the Board’s emergency declaration reasonable and supported by legislative findings. Any error in the trial court’s evidentiary rulings was not prejudicial. The court declined to review the ballot language and impartial analysis issues as moot and not of broad public interest. The order denying the writ of mandate and judgment was affirmed. View "Holtz v. Moreles" on Justia Law

The case centers on an incident during a Delta Air Lines domestic flight, where a passenger’s behavior prompted concerns among fellow travelers and flight attendants. After an off-duty pilot and other passengers reported the passenger’s conduct as suspicious, the lead flight attendant, following consultation with the captain, approached the passenger and attempted to ask him to remain seated. This interaction escalated into a physical confrontation, leading the flight attendant to request assistance from a federal law enforcement agent onboard. The agent, with the flight attendant’s help, restrained the passenger until the plane landed. The passenger later alleged that he suffered physical and emotional injuries as a result of the restraint.At trial in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, a jury found in favor of the passenger, awarding him substantial damages for bodily and emotional injuries. However, the district court vacated the verdict, citing excessive damages and the interdependence of liability and damages. The court subsequently granted summary judgment for Delta Air Lines, concluding that the airline was immune from liability under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) for any injuries sustained after the flight attendants reported the passenger’s behavior to law enforcement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that ATSA immunity applies not only to the initial disclosure of suspicious activity to law enforcement but also to subsequent conduct stemming from law enforcement’s decisions following such disclosure. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the passenger’s conduct was objectively suspicious or whether Delta was solely responsible for the injuries. As Delta was immune for all physical injuries, the passenger could not recover for any alleged emotional injuries under the Montreal Convention. View "BANDARY V. DELTA AIR LINES, INC." on Justia Law

Federal agents lawfully searched the home of an individual under investigation for drug trafficking and seized $585,000 in cash from a safe. Before the cash could be processed, an FBI agent stole $218,200 from the seizure. The agent was later prosecuted, pleaded guilty, and was ordered to pay a forfeiture money judgment that included funds traceable to the stolen cash. The individual from whom the money was seized later pleaded guilty to drug-trafficking charges and agreed to forfeit only $366,800—the amount remaining after the theft. The government did not seek forfeiture of the additional $218,200, and the final forfeiture order reflected only the lower amount.The individual then moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, seeking the return of the $218,200 that was stolen and never forfeited. The district court, treating the Rule 41(g) motion as a civil complaint, granted summary judgment to the government, finding that the individual had agreed to forfeit all cash seized and that his evidence of lawful ownership was insufficient. The court further found that no reasonable jury could conclude that any portion of the seized money was lawfully obtained while the remainder was subject to forfeiture.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that sovereign immunity did not bar the individual's Rule 41(g) claim for the return of cash that was seized, lost, but then recovered by the government in forfeiture proceedings. The court clarified that when the government possesses money traceable to previously seized funds, the claimant may seek its return, and the government bears the burden to justify retention. Finding that the government failed to meet this burden, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "CANNON V. USA" on Justia Law