Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The case concerns a challenge to the validity of Measure C, a citizens’ initiative placed on the ballot by the City of San Diego for the March 2020 election. Measure C proposed an increase in the city’s transient occupancy tax, with revenues earmarked for homelessness programs, street repairs, and convention center improvements. The measure also authorized the City to issue bonds repaid from the new tax revenues. Measure C received 65.24 percent of the vote, and the city council subsequently passed resolutions declaring the measure approved and authorizing the issuance of related bonds.After the election, Alliance San Diego and other plaintiffs filed actions challenging the City’s resolution declaring Measure C had passed, arguing it was invalid. The City responded with a validation complaint seeking judicial confirmation of the validity of Measure C and the related bond resolutions. California Taxpayers Action Network (CTAN) and other opponents answered, contending that Measure C required a two-thirds vote and was not a bona fide citizens’ initiative. The Superior Court of San Diego County initially granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that a two-thirds vote was required, and entered judgment against the City. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Measure C was a bona fide citizens’ initiative.On remand, the trial court conducted a bench trial and rejected CTAN’s arguments, finding that it had subject matter jurisdiction, the case was ripe, the special fund doctrine exempted the bonds from the two-thirds vote requirement, and Measure C was a bona fide citizens’ initiative requiring only a simple majority vote. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that Measure C and the related bond resolutions were valid, and that the trial court properly excluded certain hearsay evidence. View "Alliance San Diego v. California Taxpayers Action Network" on Justia Law

A fatal traffic accident occurred when a tractor trailer, driven by Andre Hill, ran a stop sign and collided with a vehicle driven by Olivia Mendoza, resulting in her death. Prior to the accident, Hill had picked up produce from Irigoyen Farms for delivery to a Walmart distribution center. The transportation of the produce involved several intermediaries: Irigoyen Farms contracted with a freight broker, who in turn contracted with other logistics companies, ultimately resulting in Hill being hired as an independent contractor by the motor carrier. Law enforcement determined that Hill’s extreme fatigue contributed to the crash.The decedent’s mother, Christina Casarez, filed suit in the Superior Court of Fresno County against Irigoyen Farms and Walmart, alleging motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and wrongful death. She claimed that both defendants were directly negligent in their roles: Walmart for imposing contractual requirements that allegedly incentivized unsafe conduct, and Irigoyen Farms for loading the truck and sending Hill on his way despite knowledge of his fatigue. Both defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) preempted Casarez’s claims. The superior court agreed, granting summary judgment in favor of both defendants.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the superior court’s decision de novo. The appellate court held that the FAAAA expressly preempts state law negligence claims against parties whose actions relate to the price, route, or service of a motor carrier with respect to the transportation of property, regardless of whether the party is a motor carrier, broker, or shipper. The court further held that the FAAAA’s safety exception did not apply because the claims did not directly concern the safety of the motor vehicle itself. The appellate court affirmed the superior court’s judgments in favor of Irigoyen Farms and Walmart. View "Casarez v. Irigoyen Farms" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs alleged that the City of Berkeley violated the Ralph M. Brown Act during three city council meetings in late 2023 and early 2024. At each meeting, disruptions from attendees made it impossible for the council to conduct business. The mayor determined that order could not be restored by removing disruptive individuals but did not order the meeting room cleared. Instead, the meetings were recessed and reconvened in a different, smaller room, which could not accommodate all nondisruptive members of the public. The press was allowed to attend in person, and the public could participate by video, but the council did not return to the original meeting room or attempt to remove only the disruptive individuals.The Alameda County Superior Court sustained the defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend, finding that section 54957.9 of the Brown Act did not require the city council to first attempt to remove disruptive individuals before determining that order could not be restored. The court also concluded that the city council complied with the statute by recessing and reconvening the meetings in a different room with the press present. The action was dismissed with prejudice, and plaintiffs appealed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case de novo. The court held that section 54957.9 requires a legislative body to order the meeting room cleared and continue in session in the same room, not to recess and reconvene in a different location. The statute does not authorize relocating the meeting as a response to disruption. Because plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the city council did not clear the meeting room but instead moved the meeting, the court found that a claim for relief was properly stated. The judgment was reversed. View "Berkeley People's Alliance v. City of Berkeley" on Justia Law

After the sudden death of an Alameda County Supervisor in 2021, the Board of Supervisors appointed David Kyle Brown, the former chief of staff to the late supervisor, to fill the vacancy for District 3. At the time of his appointment, Brown had been living in Contra Costa County but moved to Oakland, within District 3, shortly before his appointment. Plaintiffs, including the Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association and several individuals, challenged Brown’s eligibility to serve, arguing he failed to meet both a one-year prior residency requirement under the Alameda County Administrative Code and a 30-day prior residency requirement under state law. They also contended that Brown did not satisfy the continuous residency requirement during his term, asserting he never became a true resident of the district.The Superior Court of Alameda County first overruled Brown’s demurrer and held a hearing on the merits of the prior residency issue. The court found that neither the county nor state code imposed a prior residency requirement on appointees filling a board vacancy, ruling in Brown’s favor. After Brown’s term ended, the court determined that the continuous residency issue was moot, as Brown was no longer in office, and entered judgment for Brown. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the issues were of public importance and that the trial court erred in its rulings and case management.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, held that the prior residency requirements cited by plaintiffs do not apply to appointments made to fill board vacancies. However, the court found that the continuous residency requirement does apply and that there are unresolved factual questions regarding whether Brown satisfied this requirement during his term. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the continuous residency issue. View "People ex rel. Alameda County Taxpayers' Assn. v. Brown" on Justia Law

A licensed physician pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of California’s Business and Professions Code section 650, which prohibits receiving compensation for patient referrals. As part of a plea agreement, he paid restitution and other fees, and additional charges were dismissed. Before completing his probation, he successfully moved to have the case dismissed under Penal Code section 1385, which allows for dismissal in the interest of justice.Following this, the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) suspended him from participating in California’s workers’ compensation system, citing Labor Code section 139.21. This statute mandates suspension of any provider convicted of certain crimes related to fraud or abuse of the workers’ compensation system. The physician challenged the suspension in an administrative hearing, arguing that the dismissal of his case meant he was no longer “convicted” under the statute. The administrative law judge rejected this argument and upheld the suspension. The physician then filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which denied the petition, finding that the statutory definition of “convicted” included a guilty plea accepted by a court, regardless of later dismissal.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the matter de novo. The court held that under the plain language of Labor Code section 139.21, a person is considered “convicted” if a guilty plea has been accepted by a court, with no exception for cases later dismissed under Penal Code section 1385. The court found that the physician’s suspension was required by law and affirmed the judgment of the superior court. The DIR was awarded costs on appeal. View "Ahn v. Parisotto" on Justia Law

An employee at a hospital operated by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA Health) photographed confidential patient information and posted it to his personal Instagram account, despite having received training and signing agreements to protect patient privacy. Although the employee redacted some information, personal details of ten patients remained visible. The hospital responded by placing the employee on administrative leave, ultimately terminating him, notifying affected patients, and reiterating privacy policies to staff. No patients reported adverse consequences from the disclosure.The California Department of Public Health investigated and imposed a $75,000 penalty on the hospital, finding a violation of Health and Safety Code section 1280.15, which requires health facilities to prevent unauthorized disclosure of patient medical information. An administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the Department’s finding and penalty, interpreting section 1280.15 as imposing strict liability for any unauthorized disclosure, regardless of whether the hospital had implemented appropriate safeguards. The ALJ noted that the Department did not find a violation of section 1280.18, which requires reasonable safeguards, but still held the hospital responsible. The Department adopted the ALJ’s decision.The Regents of the University of California challenged the decision in the Superior Court of Sacramento County, seeking a writ of administrative mandate and declaratory relief. The trial court ruled in favor of the hospital, holding that a violation of section 1280.15 cannot occur without a concurrent violation of section 1280.18, thus importing a reasonableness standard into section 1280.15. The court ordered the Department to vacate its decision and remanded the matter.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that section 1280.15 is not a strict liability statute; liability requires a failure to implement reasonable safeguards as mandated by section 1280.18. The hospital was not liable absent proof of such a failure. View "Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. State Dept. of Public Health" on Justia Law

A charter city in California was required by state law to update its housing element—a component of its general plan addressing housing needs—by October 15, 2021. The city submitted a draft housing element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which found the draft would comply with state law if adopted. However, the city refused to adopt the revised housing element, citing concerns about environmental impacts and the number of affordable housing units required. The city also filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Housing Element Law, which was ultimately dismissed for lack of standing.The People of California, represented by the Attorney General and the HCD, filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Orange County Superior Court, later transferred to the San Diego County Superior Court, seeking to compel the city to adopt a compliant housing element. The Kennedy Commission, an affordable housing advocacy group, intervened. The trial court granted the State’s petition for writ of mandate, finding the city had a ministerial duty to adopt a compliant housing element, but the court’s order did not include a 120-day compliance deadline or provisional remedies limiting the city’s permitting and zoning authority, as requested by the State. The court also stayed further proceedings due to pending appeals and unresolved cross-petitions.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that Article 14 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, which includes the 120-day compliance deadline and provisional remedies, applies to enforcement actions against charter cities. The court directed the trial court to vacate its prior order and issue a new order including the required compliance deadline and provisional remedies, and to lift its stay and expeditiously resolve remaining issues. The court declined to order entry of final judgment while other pleadings remained unresolved. View "Kennedy Commission v. Superior. Ct." on Justia Law

A county public guardian sought to place an individual, A.H., under a conservatorship pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, alleging that A.H. was gravely disabled due to a mental disorder. After the initial petition was filed in February 2023, the trial court imposed a temporary conservatorship. A.H. requested a trial, which by statute should have commenced within 10 days, but the trial was repeatedly continued due to court and counsel unavailability, ultimately beginning months later. As the first temporary conservatorship neared expiration, the public guardian filed a second petition and obtained a new temporary conservatorship, further extending A.H.’s involuntary confinement. A.H. objected to the continuances and sought dismissal of both petitions, arguing that the delays violated statutory deadlines and his due process rights.The Superior Court of Contra Costa County denied A.H.’s motions to dismiss, continued the trials multiple times, and ultimately dismissed the first petition at the public guardian’s request. The trial on the second petition began approximately ten weeks after the statutory deadline, and the court found A.H. gravely disabled, ordering a one-year conservatorship with various restrictions. The public guardian did not seek to renew the conservatorship after it expired.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, held that the statutory deadline for commencing trial under the LPS Act is directory, not mandatory, and does not require automatic dismissal if missed. The court also found that, although the trial court abused its discretion by repeatedly granting continuances without good cause, this error was harmless as it did not affect the outcome of the conservatorship order. However, the appellate court concluded that the cumulative delay—over ten months of involuntary confinement before a final adjudication—violated A.H.’s due process rights, particularly since none of the delay was attributable to A.H. and he had never previously been found gravely disabled. The conservatorship order was therefore reversed. View "Conservatorship of A.H." on Justia Law

Catherine Baker was employed by San Mateo County as a Social Worker III but went on medical leave in 2009 due to back pain. In 2015, she returned to work in a different position as a screener trainee, which involved different duties but was compensated at the same pay rate as her original position. Her last paycheck was issued in January 2016. In 2017, Baker applied for a service-connected disability retirement, and the San Mateo County Employees Retirement Association (SamCERA) determined that the effective date for her retirement benefits should be January 22, 2016, the day after her last receipt of “regular compensation.”After SamCERA’s Board approved her application and set the effective date, Baker sought administrative review, arguing that her compensation as a screener trainee did not qualify as “regular compensation” under Government Code section 31724 because she had not returned to her original job. An administrative law judge recommended denial of her request to change the effective date, and the Board adopted this recommendation. Baker then filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the Superior Court of San Mateo County, which denied the petition and confirmed the January 22, 2016 effective date.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed whether “regular compensation” under section 31724 included Baker’s pay as a screener trainee. Exercising independent judgment on statutory interpretation, the court held that “regular compensation” refers to regular salary or full wages, regardless of whether the position is the employee’s original job. Because Baker’s screener trainee pay matched her original position’s rate, it qualified as “regular compensation.” The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, upholding the effective date set by SamCERA. View "Baker v. San Mateo County Employees Retirement Assn." on Justia Law

In 2018, the plaintiff was placed on an involuntary 72-hour psychiatric hold, resulting in the creation of a confidential record by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. In 2021, during a legal dispute over their father’s estate, the plaintiff discovered that his sister’s attorney had obtained this confidential record and used it to threaten him in an attempt to force dismissal of his elder abuse lawsuit against his sister. The record had been released by an office specialist at the Sheriff’s Department, who admitted knowing the sister was not entitled to the record but disclosed it anyway, believing she was concerned for the plaintiff’s well-being.A jury in the Superior Court of Orange County found that the office specialist willfully and knowingly disclosed the confidential record, awarding the plaintiff $29,000 in economic damages and $40,000 in noneconomic damages. The jury also found the plaintiff’s sister and her attorney responsible for 25 percent of the damages. However, the trial court granted a motion for partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict, concluding there was insufficient evidence of willfulness, declined to treble the damages, and apportioned both economic and noneconomic damages, entering judgment for 75 percent of the total damages against the office specialist and the County.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reversed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that “willfully and knowingly” under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5330 means intentionally releasing confidential records to someone known to be unauthorized, regardless of intent to harm. The court found substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of willfulness, requiring trebling of damages. The court also held that while noneconomic damages could be apportioned to other tortfeasors, economic damages could not. The case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment for $177,000 against the County and the office specialist, jointly and severally. View "Doe v. County of Orange" on Justia Law