Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Martin began working for California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in 2000, and Sphar began working for CDCR in 2002. They were dismissed in 2004 and challenged their dismissals. In October 2008, an administrative law judge found that the dismissals had been unjustified and revoked them. The ALJ’s decision provided that a hearing would be set if the parties were “unable to agree as to salary, benefits and interest due under Government Code section 19584.The two were reinstated to employment. CDCR sought a writ of mandate to overturn the decision to include merit salary adjustments and physical fitness incentive pay (PFIP), and claimed that the offset to backpay for money earned from other employers should have included overtime pay. The CDCR also challenged the Board’s decision that Sphar would be compensated at salary range “K,” for which he had not qualified at the time of his dismissal. The superior court ordered that the offset include overtime pay, but denied the remainder of the petition. The court of appeal affirmed, concluding that section 19584 authorized the inclusion of merit salary adjustments and PFIP in the award, authorized Sphar to be compensated at salary range “K,” and required the inclusion of overtime pay in the offset. View "Dept. of Corrs. & Rehab. v. State Pers. Bd." on Justia Law

In April 2008, a particularly cold month in a dry year, young salmon were found fatally stranded along banks of the Russian River system, which drains Sonoma and Mendocino Counties. The deaths were caused by abrupt declines in water level that occurred when water was drained from the streams and sprayed on vineyards and orchards to prevent frost damage. After hearings and preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR), the State Water Resources Control Board adopted a regulation that is likely to require reduction in diversion of water for frost protection under certain circumstances. The regulation does not limit water use, but delegates regulatory authority to local governing bodies composed of the diverting growers. The regulation declares that any water use inconsistent with the programs, once they are approved by the Board, is unreasonable and prohibited. The trial court invalidated the Board’s action. The appeals court reversed. While authority to require a permit for water use by riparian users and early appropriators is beyond the authority of the Board, it has the power to prevent unreasonable use of water. In regulating unreasonable use of water, the Board can weigh public purposes, notably the protection of wildlife habitat, against the commercial use of water by riparian users and early appropriators. The court noted that its ruling was on a facial challenge and did not address the validity of any particular substantive regulation. The Board did not unlawfully delegate its authority and properly certified the EIR. View "Light v. State Water Res. Control Bd." on Justia Law

Mother Y.Z. appealed a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her children, G.P. and A. P., and choosing adoption as the appropriate permanent plan. Mother contended the court erroneously found that the children should have been removed from their relative caregiver and placed in a foster home under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 387 deprived her of the ability to raise an exception to the adoption preference under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A). Mother also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding that the beneficial relationship exception to the adoption preference was inapplicable. "Jose P.," the presumed father of G.P. and A.P., joined Mother's arguments and argued his due process rights were violated when the court terminated his parental rights without having made a detriment finding as to him. Upon review of the juvenile court order, the Court of Appeal concluded the court's findings under section 387 as well as its determination that the beneficial relationship exception did not apply were supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, the Court found that Father invited the error he appealed, and even if he did not do so, the juvenile court's findings were sufficient to support termination of Father's rights. View "In re G.P." on Justia Law

Service Employees International Union, Local 1021, AFL-CIO (SEIU) alleged that the Sonoma County Community Development Commission lacked legal authority to contract with a private corporation to conduct housing inspection services that had formerly been performed by public employees. The Commission argued that Health and Safety Code sections 34144 and 341452 expressly authorized it to enter into a contract with a private entity for necessary services, such as housing inspection. Section 34145 authorizes it to “hire, employ, or contract for staff, contractors, and consultants.” The trial court dismissed SEIU’s lawsuit. The appeals court affirmed, noting that the Commission’s powers, duties and scope of authority are not delegated but are fixed and circumscribed by statute. The statute does not include the limitations argued by SEIU. View "Serv. Emps. Int'l Union v. Cnty. of Sonoma" on Justia Law

Twenty California counties were plaintiffs in this petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants the State and its pertinent officials (DHCS and DMH). In their petition, the Counties alleged that a DHCS 2009 Memorandum and a DMH 2010 Letter were invalid. Under federal Medicaid law, the federal government did not pay for services to IMD patients between the ages of 21 and 65. In 1999, California added a state-only Medi-Cal benefit by enacting Welfare and Institutions Code section 14053.1. The section provided that the State would pay for "ancillary outpatient services" for IMD patients within the federal IMD exclusion. The specific focus of this appeal involved two Assembly Bills: No. 2877 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) and No. 430 (2000-2001 Reg. Sess.) that concerned subsequent sunsetting legislation regarding section 14053.1. Assembly Bill 2877 (enacted in 2000) sought to extend the original sunset provision an additional year, and Assembly Bill 430 (enacted in 2001) sought to eliminate the sunset provision altogether, thereby making section 14053.1 effective indefinitely. The counties argued the memorandum and letter were: (1) inconsistent with section 14053.1; and (2) they constituted underground regulations adopted in violation of the state Administrative Procedures Act (Gov. Code, 11340.5, subd. (a)). The Counties similarly sought a writ/injunction prohibiting the State from applying them against the Counties. The trial court denied the Counties' petition for writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive relief, and issued a declaratory judgment in favor of the State. The court concluded that the subsequent sunsetting amendments (Assem. Bills 2877 & 430) were void because they were enacted after the statute had already sunset by its own terms in 2000. Thus, in the absence of section 14053.1, the State did not promulgate an underground regulation by issuing the DHCS 2009 Memorandum and the DMH 2010 Letter and ancillary outpatient services for Medi-Cal eligible IMD patients within the federal IMD exclusion. The Court of Appeal concluded that section 14053.1 remained a valid law, and that 14053.1's presence in the California statutes was not the result of a legislative amendment to a repealed act. The Counties' petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief was granted: the DHCS 2009 Memorandum and the DMH 2010 Letter contravened section 14053.1 and were therefore invalid. The State was enjoined from applying them. The judgment of the trial court was reversed. View "Colusa County v. Douglas" on Justia Law

In 2012, Westlands Water District and its related distribution districts entered into two-year, interim renewal contracts with the United States Bureau of Reclamation relating to the Bureau’s ongoing provision of Central Valley Project (CVP) water to the Water Districts. When Water Districts approved the interim renewal contracts, they made specific findings that the renewals were exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Accordingly, the Water Districts did not undertake their own environmental review prior to such approvals. Thereafter, North Coast Rivers Alliance, Friends of the River, Save the American River Association, the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe all filed a petition for writ of mandate, contending that the interim renewal contracts were not exempt from CEQA and that the Water Districts should have undertaken a full environmental review. The trial court disagreed and denied the petition for writ of mandate. Petitioners appealed the judgment of dismissal. Upon review of the record, the Court of Appeal concluded that the matters contemplated in the interim renewal contracts were exempt from CEQA, including under the statutory exemption for ongoing pre-CEQA projects, and the categorical exemption for the continued operation of existing facilities at the same level of use. Therefore, the Court affirmed the superior court judgment. View "North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water Dist." on Justia Law