Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

All parties to this matter appealed a district court’s judgment. Orange County Social Services Department (SSA) sought to remove Z.G. and I.L. from their parents’ custody, C.G. (Mother) and H.L. (Father), after Children’s sibling, H.L., Jr. (Junior), died. The juvenile court found Parents’ “neglect” was a cause of Junior’s death. Despite the Parents essentially doing nothing to move the family towards reunification, the court found reunification was in the “best interest” of Children. The Parents appealed the jurisdiction and disposition orders and argued there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding their neglect was a cause of Junior’s death. Thus, they contend the court erred by concluding Children were subject to jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (f), and that Parents were subject to the reunification services bypass provisions of section 361.5, subdivision (b)(4). The Children appealed the disposition order and contended there was insufficient evidence to support the finding reunification with Parents is in the best interest of Children. Hence, they argued, the court abused its discretion by ordering reunification services for Parents under section 361.5, subdivision (c). SSA joined the Children’s argument. After review, the Court of Appeals concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding Parents’ neglect was a cause of Junior’s death, but there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding reunification with Parents was in Children’s best interest. Therefore the court abused its discretion by ordering reunification services for Parents. Consequently, the Court reversed that portion of the disposition order, but affirmed the jurisdiction and disposition orders in all other respects. View "In re Z.G." on Justia Law

Brookside filed suit against the City alleging that the City Council's actions in proposing and advocating repeal of a 1990 ordinance - that prohibited the El Monte City Council from passing any form of mobilehome park rent control - violated an express prohibition of such activity in that ordinance. The superior court granted the City's motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the trial court properly granted summary judgment for the City. The court rejected Brookside's arguments concerning the scope of the prohibitory language in the 1990 ordinance and arguments that the City Council’s actions violated the California Constitution’s implicit withholding of authority for a local government to propose initiative measures that amend or repeal earlier voter-approved ordinances. View "Brookside Investments v. City of El Monte" on Justia Law

Real-Party-in-Interest Encore McKinley Village, LLC (Encore) proposed to construct the McKinley Village Project (the Project). The City of Sacramento certified the Project’s environmental impact report (EIR) and approved the Project. East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City (ESPLC), a neighborhood group, appeals from denial of its petition for a writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief to set aside the City’s approval of the Project. ESPLC contended the City violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it approved the Project because: (1) the Project description is defective; (2) there was illegal piecemealing; (3) the EIR failed to analyze significant health risks; (4) the EIR ignored significant traffic impacts; and (5) the EIR failed to disclose or mitigate methane migration. Further, ESPLC contends the Project was inconsistent with the City’s general plan. After review, the Court of Appeals found merit in only the fourth contention. ESPLC challenged the threshold of significance used in the EIR to determine whether traffic impacts were significant; the City relied on policies in its general plan that permitted congested traffic conditions within the core area of the City, thus finding no significant impact of congested traffic on neighborhood streets. The Court held that compliance with a general plan policy did not conclusively establish there was no significant environmental impact, and the City failed to explain why it found none in this circumstance. The Court reversed the judgment and remanded for the City to correct this deficiency in the EIR. View "East Sacramento Partnership v. City of Sacramento" on Justia Law

After defendant was taken into custody for psychiatric evaluation and treatment for up to 72 hours pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150, she was released and banned from owning, possessing, controlling, receiving, or purchasing any firearm for five years. The Superior Court of Kern County denied her petition to lift the prohibition and found that the preponderance of the evidence established that defendant would not be likely to use firearms in a safe and lawful manner. The court found that the superior court’s order was appealable, but found that defendant is not entitled to appointed counsel; concluded that section 8103, subdivision (f)(6), employs a constitutional standard of proof and is not unconstitutionally vague; and concluded that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s denial of defendant's petition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order. View "People v. Mary H." on Justia Law

This appeal centered on who was entitled to real property tax increment revenue after the statutory dissolution of the San Jose Redevelopment Agency. The trial court held that tax increment revenue from a real property tax imposed to raise funds for the pension obligations of Santa Clara County was properly distributed to the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund to pay the debts of the former redevelopment agency. Santa Clara County, with its Director of Finance Vinod Sharma, argued on appeal that this holding was erroneous. The trial court also held that statutes dissolving the former redevelopment agency required that certain tax increment revenue be passed through from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund to Santa Clara County instead of being used to meet the enforceable obligations of the former redevelopment agency. The City of San Jose, as the successor of the redevelopment agency, argued on appeal that this holding was erroneous. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. View "City of San Jose v. Sharma" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Paul Cameron submitted his application for disability retirement on May 22, 2009, after the second of two injuries he sustained during his tenure as a Sacramento County employee. The SCERS staff referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings where it was heard by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). In 2013, the ALJ found that the application was untimely and denied the application for service-related retirement. Based on the ALJ’s findings, SCERS denied plaintiff’s application for service-connected retirement. Cameron appealed. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff failed to show he was continuously disabled within the meaning of Government Code sections 31722 and 31641, subdivision (a), between the discontinuance of his service and the time he filed his application for service-connected disability retirement. Consequently, his application was not timely under section 31722. In the unpublished portion of its opinion, the Court concluded that plaintiff did not show that SCERS failed to inform him of his rights regarding disability retirement, misled him concerning those rights, otherwise breached its fiduciary duty to him, or caused plaintiff’s delay in making his application. View "Cameron v. Sacramento Co. Employees' Retirement System" on Justia Law

In 2011, when the minor "T.M." was seven years old, his mother died and he began living with father. In 2015, an unknown reporter told social services the minor was afraid of his father, who had been punching him. The minor reported to the social worker father had been punching him “for the last five years,” including “whoopings” when the minor got into trouble and “for no reason.” The minor was aware father hits his stepmother. Father was convicted of a 2012 misdemeanor domestic violence incident against stepmother. He failed to complete the batterer’s treatment program that was part of his sentence. T.M. was ultimately placed with an uncle, and indicated he did not want to return home. At a contested jurisdiction hearing, father testified the minor was lying about being afraid or having been beaten. Apparently referencing father’s disruptive behavior during the hearing, the court noted he was unable “to control himself in any setting, let alone should the child be subject to his behaviors.” The court set review hearing dates and reiterated therapeutic visitation and conjoint counseling could begin after both father and the minor had an opportunity for individual counseling. Father appealed the juvenile court's order denying him visitation with T.M., arguing the trial court applied the wrong standard in finding that visits would be detrimental to T.M. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "In re T.M." on Justia Law

The City proposed to finance road improvement projects through a public benefit corporation and pay the debt from revenues held in special funds, and filed an action seeking validation of this finance plan under Government Code section 53511 and Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq. West Park opposed the plan and challenged the trial court's judgment validating the City's proposed plan. The court concluded that the City’s finance plan does not violate the California Constitution’s debt limitation where a reasonable nexus exists between the revenues and the projects that will be financed by those revenues. The court concluded, however, that the City cannot pledge gas tax revenues to make the installment payments. In this case, the City's gas tax revenues will be used to pay non-voter approved bonds. This is an impermissible use of these funds. Accordingly, the court reversed as to the portion of the judgment validating the use of the state gas tax revenues and affirmed as to the remainder of the judgment. View "City of Bakersfield v. West Park Home Owners Ass'n & Friends" on Justia Law

The Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) imposed a $179,329.60 penalty, pursuant to Labor Code section 3722(b) against Taylor for failure to maintain workers’ compensation insurance as required by section 3700. Taylor requested an administrative hearing and then filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus under section 3725. The petition was dismissed. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting Taylor’s statutory construction and equal protection challenges to the penalty and section 3722(b). The court held that “calendar year,” as used in section 3722(b), means the 12-month period immediately preceding a determination that an employer has been uninsured for the requisite period. View "Taylor v. Department of Industrial Relations" on Justia Law

For some period of time before March 2015, the Agricultural Labor Relations Board had delegated plenary authority to seek injunctive relief under Labor Code section 1160.4 to general counsel. In March 2015, the board decided to change that delegation by requiring general counsel to obtain case-specific approval from the board for every request for injunctive relief. In May 2015, general counsel asked the board to approve a proceeding for injunctive relief against Gerawan Farming, Inc. (Gerawan). The board gave its conditional approval to that proceeding. When Gerawan asked the board to disclose the communications between the board and general counsel regarding the matter under the California Public Records Act, the board refused, claiming privilege. Gerawan brought a writ proceeding in Sacramento County Superior Court seeking to force the board to disclose the requested communications, and the court ordered disclosure. The board brought the present writ proceeding to the Court of Appeals to challenge the superior court’s ruling. After review, the Court of Appeals concluded the superior court erred in ordering disclosure of the communications between the board and general counsel relating to the decision to seek injunctive relief against Gerawan because those communications were indeed protected by the attorney-client privilege. "[E]ven if due process concerns with respect to the pending administrative proceeding against Gerawan are raised by the communications at issue, those concerns do not preclude the attorney-client privilege from attaching to those communications, and because the communications are privileged, they are exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act." Accordingly, the Court directed that a writ of mandate issue ordering the superior court to vacate its order requiring disclosure of those communications and enter a new order denying Gerawan’s request for disclosure. View "Agricultural Labor etc. Bd. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law