Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff HNHPC, Inc., appealed a judgment entered in favor of Defendants the Department of Cannabis Control (the Department) and Nicole Elliott. The complaint alleged the Department failed to perform its mandatory duties and/or failed to properly perform discretionary duties under the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA). Plaintiff contended the court erred by taking judicial notice of certain documents and by sustaining defendants' demurrer. In sustaining defendants’ demurrer, the court took judicial notice of two government contracts with a contractor to design the track and trace system and the Department’s budget request for the 2021-2022 fiscal year. Relying on these documents, the court found the Department had complied with its ministerial duties under Bus. & Prof. Code section 26067. Assuming, without deciding, that the trial court properly took judicial notice of the documents, the Court of Appeal found the complaint still stated a claim for a writ of mandate and injunctive relief because the judicially noticed documents did not contradict the complaint's allegations. Because the complaint adequately pleaded facts to state a cause of action for a writ of mandate and for injunctive relief, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment. View "HNHPC v. Dept. of Cannabis Control" on Justia Law

The Second Appellate District reversed the trial court’s ruling granting Plaintiffs’ petition for a peremptory writ of mandate prohibiting the Board, the Los Angeles County Auditor and the Los Angeles County Chief Executive Officer (CEO) from enforcing the charter amendment. The court held the amendment neither impairs the exercise of essential government functions nor violates state law.the voters of Los Angeles County (County) amended the County charter by enacting Measure J. The charter amendment adopted by Measure J requires the County Board of Supervisors (Board) to annually allocate at least 10 percent of the County’s locally generated unrestricted revenues in the general fund to direct community investment (such as youth programs, job training, rental assistance, and affordable housing) and alternatives to incarceration (including health, mental health, and substance use disorder programs). The charter amendment also specifically prohibits Measure J funds from being allocated to any carceral system or law enforcement agency. Immediately after Measure J’s enactment, a coalition of County employee unions and two individuals filed a petition for a peremptory writ of mandate prohibiting the Board, the Los Angeles County Auditor (auditor), and the Los Angeles County Chief Executive Officer (CEO) from enforcing the charter amendment. The trial court granted the petition.   The Second Appellate District reversed. The court wrote that because the charter amendment enacted by Measure J defines a “power of the County’s “governing bod[y]” (the Board)—and because it concerns “[t]he performance of functions required by statute” (adopting a budget)—it is a permissible exercise of the County’s authority to amend its charter. Further, contrary to Plaintiffs' contentions, the amendment neither impairs the exercise of essential government functions nor violates state law. Measure J thus is enforceable, and the court, therefore, reversed the judgment granting the petition for writ of mandate. View "Coalition of County Unions v. L.A. County Bd. of Supervisors" on Justia Law

The City of Los Angeles (the City) approved a project at 1719-1731 North Whitley Avenue in Hollywood (the Project) that would replace 40 apartments subject to the City’s rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) with a hotel. The City determined the Project was exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines relating to certain development projects. The relevant guideline addresses what is often referred to as the “infill” exemption or the “Class 32” exemption. Respondent United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles (United Neighborhoods) sought a writ of mandate in the Los Angeles Superior Court, arguing, among other things, that the in-fill exemption does not apply because the Project is not consistent with a General Plan policy concerning the preservation of affordable housing. The trial court granted the writ, effectively halting the Project until the City was to find the Project is consistent with that policy or 148-159 undertakes CEQA review. The City and real parties in interest appeal.   The Second Appellate District affirmed the order granting the petition for writ of mandate. The court explained that the City’s suggestion that the Project’s consistency with the Framework Element implies consistency “with the entirety of the General Plan” because of the Framework Element’s foundational role assumes, contrary to authority, the Framework Element stands in perfect harmony with the General Plan. However, the court explained that although it affirms the trial court, it does not suggest that the City was necessarily required to make formal findings that Housing Element policies are outweighed by competing policies favoring the Project. View "United Neighborhoods for L.A. v. City of L.A." on Justia Law

In 2016 Martin Mariano, an employee of plaintiff L & S Framing Inc., was working on a residential house under construction when he fell from the second floor onto the concrete ground floor below, sustaining serious injuries. Following an investigation, real party in interest California Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Occupational Safety and Health (the Division) issued a citation, which eventually included a serious accident- related citation for violation of California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 1626(b)(5). Plaintiff appealed the citation. An administrative law judge (ALJ) denied the Division’s mid-hearing request to amend the citation to allege a violation of section 1632(b)(1), denied the Division’s post-hearing motion to amend to allege violation of section 1626(a)(2), and concluded the Division failed to prove the alleged violation of section 1626(b)(5). The Division filed a petition for reconsideration with the defendant California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (the Appeals Board). The Appeals Board concluded the ALJ improperly denied the two requests to amend and upheld the citation based on violation of both section 1632(b)(1) and 1626(a)(2). Plaintiff petitioned for a writ of mandate, the trial court denied the petition. On appeal, plaintiff argued the trial court: (1) erred in permitting the Appeals Board to amend the citation; (2) incorrectly concluded sections 1632(b)(1) and 1626(a)(2) applied; and (3) incorrectly concluded section 1716.2 did not apply and did not supersede the other regulations on the facts of this case. The Court of Appeal surmised that second and third of these contentions depended on the question whether the specific location from which Mariano fell qualified as a floor opening (§ 1632(b)(1)) and/or a stairwell (§ 1626(a)(2)), or instead an “unprotected side[] or edge[]” (§ 1716.2(f)). After review, the Court affirmed, finding the Appeals Board properly allowed the Division to amend the citation, the Appeals Board reasonably deemed the location at issue to fall within the scope of sections 1632(b)(1) and 1626(a)(2) and that determination was supported by substantial evidence, and the Appeals Board properly determined section 1716.2 did not apply. View "L & S Framing Inc. v. Cal. Occupational Saf. & Health Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

Barber Group, Inc., doing business as Barber Honda (Barber)—a car dealer in Bakersfield, California—brought an establishment protest to the California New Motor Vehicle Board (Board), challenging a decision by American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) to open a new dealership about nine miles away. The Board overruled Barber’s protest, and the trial court denied Barber’s petition for administrative mandate challenging the Board’s decision. On appeal, Barber argued the Board prejudicially erred when it: (1) relied on Honda’s dealer performance standards at the protest hearing without first deciding whether those standards were reasonable; (2) permitted the proposed new dealership to exercise a peremptory challenge to an administrative law judge initially assigned to the protest hearing, contrary to notions of fairness and the Board’s own order in the matter; and (3) denied Barber’s request that it take official notice of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Barber Group, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd." on Justia Law

In a challenge to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s policy of towing safely and lawfully parked vehicles without a warrant based solely on the accrual of unpaid parking tickets, the Coalition argued that the warrantless tows are unreasonable seizures within the meaning of article I, section 13 of the California Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The trial court denied a motion for a writ of mandate and declaratory and injunctive relief.The court of appeal reversed. The challenged warrantless tows are not permissible under the vehicular community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. The defendants have not shown that legally parked cars with unpaid parking tickets that present no threat to “public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic” may be towed under that exception. The court rejected an argument that the governmental interest in deterring parking violations and nonpayment of parking fines justifies warrantless tows under the vehicular community caretaking exception. The tows at issue may not be justified by analogy to warrantless property seizures in the forfeiture context. View "Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

Miguel D. (Father) left his eight-year-old daughter, M.D., alone inside a locked apartment that had no electricity, an empty non-operable refrigerator, and no edible food. After waking up to find her father and his truck gone, M.D. climbed through a kitchen window to look for him and was found wandering the apartment complex. The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a dependency petition alleging Father failed to adequately supervise and protect M.D., and willfully or negligently failed to provide her with adequate food and shelter. The juvenile court found the petition true, took jurisdiction, and removed M.D. from Father’s custody while he was offered reunification services. On appeal, Father argued the Court of Appeal had to reverse the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order because Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(b)(2) prohibited the juvenile court from assuming jurisdiction over a child “solely” due to a parent’s indigence or poverty. He further argued the Court should reverse the dispositional order because the Agency failed to demonstrate there were no reasonable means to protect M.D. without removing her from Father’s custody. Because the record did not support either contention, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "In re M.D." on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Marvin Sloan appealed an order finding he qualified as a sexually violent predator (SVP) and committing him to the State Department of State Hospitals. His sole argument on appeal was that the trial court erred in allowing the State to use a privately retained expert to testify at trial. To support this position, Sloan cited Needham v. Superior Court, 82 Cal.App.5th 114 (2022), which held that the State had no right to privately retain an expert under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA). The California Supreme Court recently granted review in Needham and will decide whether Needham’s interpretation of the SVPA was correct. In the meantime, the Court of Appeal joined Needham in concluding that the State could not retain an expert to testify at an SVP trial. The order was therefore reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court to issue an order excluding the testimony of the State's privately retained expert and to conduct a new trial. View "California v. Sloan" on Justia Law

Under the 1976 Migrant Education Act (Ed. Code 54442)., the State Board of Education must adopt a master plan for services to migrant children, requiring “[t]he active involvement of parents, teachers, and community representatives in the local implementation of migrant education.” The Superintendent of Public Instruction implements the plan and must establish regional parent advisory councils (RPACs) to consult with local agencies in the planning, operation, and evaluation of migrant education programs. In 2019, the Superintendent adopted regulations concerning the formation and governance of RPACs.The trial court rejected arguments that the Superintendent acted outside his statutory authority, as section 54444.2 provides migrant parents the “sole authority” to “decide on the composition of the council,” that the regulations conflict with the statute by placing impermissible restrictions on migrant parents’ authority to elect RPAC members, that the necessity of the regulations to effectuate the Act’s purpose was not supported by substantial evidence, and that the adoption violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The court of appeal concluded that the Superintendent acted within his authority in adopting the challenged regulations but violated the APA’s notice requirements when he adopted a regulation prohibiting RPAC members’ use of alternates without adequate notice to the public. The necessity of the regulations is supported by substantial evidence. The regulations are valid except for the prohibition on alternates and portions of the regulations the trial court invalidated. View "Wendz v. Department of Education" on Justia Law

In 2018, Anaheim voters approved a Living Wage Ordinance (LWO). The LWO applied to hospitality employers in the Anaheim or Disneyland Resort areas that benefited from a “City Subsidy.” In 2019, Kathleen Grace and other plaintiffs (“Employees”) filed a class action complaint against the Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, U.S., Inc. (“Disney”) and Sodexo, Inc., and Sodexomagic, LLC (“Sodexo”) alleging a violation of the LWO (Sodexo operated restaurants in Disney’s theme parks). Disney moved for summary judgment and Sodexo joined. It was undisputed the Employees were not being paid the required minimum hourly wage under the LWO. However, Disney argued it was not covered under the LWO as a matter of law because it was not benefitting from a “City Subsidy.” The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeal disagreed: “A ‘City Subsidy’ is any agreement with the city pursuant to which a person other than the city has a right to receive a rebate of transient occupancy tax, sales tax, entertainment tax, property tax or other taxes, presently or in the future, matured or unmatured.” The Court determined that through a "reimbursement agreement," Disney had the right to a rebate on transient occupancy taxes (paid by hotel guests), sales taxes (paid by consumers), and property taxes (paid by Disney), in any years when the City’s tax revenues were sufficient to meet certain bond obligations. Consequently, the Court found Disney received a “City Subsidy” within the meaning of the LWO and was therefore obligated to pay its employees the designated minimum wages. View "Grace v. The Walt Disney Company" on Justia Law