Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The case centers on the City of San José’s attempt to address a substantial unfunded liability in its employee retirement plans. The City, obligated by its charter and state law to maintain actuarially sound pension systems for its employees, decided to refinance this unfunded liability by issuing pension obligation bonds. The proposed bonds would allow the City to pay down the liability at a potentially lower interest rate, thereby aiming to relieve future budgetary pressures. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and others challenged the plan, arguing that issuing these bonds would create new municipal debt exceeding current annual revenues and, under the California Constitution’s local debt limitation, would require approval by two-thirds of the City’s voters.The Santa Clara County Superior Court found in favor of the City, ruling that the unfunded pension liability was an obligation imposed by law and thus fell within an exception to the local debt limitation. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, though it reasoned that the bonds would not create new debt because the obligation already existed in the form of the unfunded liability.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court held that, even if the bonds were considered to create new debt, the City’s obligation to address its unfunded actuarial liability is an obligation imposed by law, not a voluntary undertaking. Therefore, the exception to the local debt limitation applies, and voter approval is not required for the issuance of the pension obligation bonds. The Court clarified that the local debt limitation does not restrict the City’s discretion in choosing how to fulfill its legally imposed pension funding obligations. View "City of San Jose v. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn." on Justia Law

A group of homeowners, all over the age of 65, entered into contracts for energy efficiency improvements to their homes under California's Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. This program allows local governments to offer financing for such improvements, with repayment made through voluntary special assessments added to the homeowners’ property tax bills. Most local governments contracted private companies to administer these PACE loans. The homeowners alleged that these private administrators failed to comply with consumer protection and lending laws applicable to consumer lenders, such as providing required warnings and avoiding prohibited security interests. They filed suit under the Unfair Competition Law, seeking injunctive relief and restitution, including the return of assessment monies paid and prohibitions on future collection of delinquent assessments unless the assessments were removed from their properties.The San Diego County Superior Court sustained the defendants’ demurrers, concluding that the plaintiffs were required to exhaust administrative tax remedies before pursuing their claims in court. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning that because PACE assessments are collected as part of property taxes and the relief sought would invalidate those assessments, plaintiffs first needed to pay the assessments and seek administrative relief through the established tax refund procedures.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine whether plaintiffs were required to follow statutory procedures for challenging taxes. The court held that when plaintiffs’ claims effectively seek to invalidate PACE assessments or prevent their future collection, they must first pay the assessments and pursue administrative tax remedies. However, the court also held that plaintiffs are not required to use tax challenge procedures for claims that do not directly or indirectly challenge a tax, such as those solely addressing the administration of the PACE program. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case remanded to consider whether plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaints to state only non-tax-related claims. View "Morgan v. Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involves a challenge to a tariff adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) that significantly reduced the compensation utilities pay to customers who generate electricity through rooftop solar panels and export excess energy to the grid. Petitioners, including environmental organizations, argued that the Commission’s tariff was inconsistent with Public Utilities Code section 2827.1, which requires the Commission to ensure that compensation for customer-generators reflects the costs and benefits of renewable generation and supports sustainable growth, particularly among disadvantaged communities.The First Appellate District, Division Three, of the California Court of Appeal granted a writ of review and affirmed the Commission’s decision. In doing so, the Court of Appeal applied a highly deferential standard of review derived from the California Supreme Court’s decision in Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com., asking only whether the Commission’s interpretation of the statute bore a reasonable relation to statutory purposes and language. The court concluded that the Commission’s approach satisfied this standard and declined to engage in a more searching review of the statutory interpretation.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine whether the deferential Greyhound standard remains appropriate following legislative amendments to the Public Utilities Code. The Supreme Court held that, for Commission decisions not pertaining solely to water corporations, the deferential Greyhound standard no longer applies. Instead, courts must independently review the Commission’s statutory interpretations under the standards set forth in Public Utilities Code sections 1757 and 1757.1, which parallel the review of other administrative agencies. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this less deferential standard. View "Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com." on Justia Law

Wanda Brown, the elected treasurer of the City of Inglewood since 1987, raised concerns in late 2019 and early 2020 about the city's financial management, specifically alleging that the mayor had misappropriated public funds. Following these allegations, Brown claimed she faced retaliatory actions from the city and its officials, including a reduction in her salary and authority, exclusion from meetings and committees, and other punitive measures. Brown subsequently filed a lawsuit against the city, its mayor, and council members for retaliation under California Labor Code section 1102.5, which protects whistleblowers.The Los Angeles County Superior Court denied the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion, which sought to strike Brown's retaliation claim on the grounds that she was not an "employee" under section 1102.5. The court reasoned that Brown's claim did not arise from protected speech activities but from alleged retaliatory actions. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, concluding that Brown's retaliation claim did arise from protected activities and that she was not an "employee" under section 1102.5, as the statute did not explicitly include elected officials within its protections.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeal's judgment. The court held that elected officials, such as Brown, are not considered "employees" under Labor Code section 1106 and therefore cannot invoke the protections of section 1102.5. The court's decision was based on the statutory language, legislative history, and the context of related whistleblower statutes, which indicated that the Legislature did not intend to include elected officials within the scope of these protections. View "Brown v. City of Inglewood" on Justia Law

Michael Ayala, a correctional officer for California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), was injured in a planned attack by inmates. He filed a workers’ compensation claim, asserting that his injuries were due to CDCR’s serious and willful misconduct in failing to address a credible threat of inmate violence. A workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) initially rejected this claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) found in favor of Ayala, concluding that he was entitled to a 50 percent increase in compensation under Labor Code section 4553 due to CDCR’s serious and willful misconduct.The CDCR did not dispute the finding of serious and willful misconduct but argued that the 50 percent increase should be calculated based on the temporary disability (TD) benefits Ayala would have received under the workers’ compensation law, not the more generous industrial disability leave (IDL) and enhanced industrial disability leave (EIDL) benefits he received under the Government Code. The WCJ agreed with CDCR, but the Board reversed, including IDL and EIDL benefits in the calculation of the increased compensation.The California Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the Court of Appeal, which had reversed the Board’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the term “compensation” under Labor Code section 4553, as defined in section 3207, is limited to benefits provided under the workers’ compensation law. Therefore, the 50 percent increase in compensation for serious and willful misconduct should be calculated based on the TD benefits Ayala was entitled to under the workers’ compensation law, not the IDL and EIDL benefits provided under the Government Code. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed. View "Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

Victor Raul Tellez was charged with three counts of lewd or lascivious acts upon a child and faced a maximum prison term of 12 years. On the advice of his attorney, he accepted a plea deal, pleading guilty to one count and receiving a three-year prison sentence. Tellez was not informed that his conviction would make him eligible for civil commitment as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). After completing his prison term, the District Attorney initiated SVPA proceedings for his involuntary commitment to a state hospital.Tellez filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the San Diego County Superior Court, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not being advised of the SVPA consequences. The superior court denied his petition, and the Court of Appeal also denied it, stating that prevailing norms did not require such advisement and that Tellez had not demonstrated prejudice. Tellez then petitioned the California Supreme Court for review.The California Supreme Court held that Tellez did not sufficiently demonstrate he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to advise him of the SVPA consequences. The court noted that Tellez provided insufficient evidence that he would not have accepted the plea deal had he been informed of the SVPA consequences. Therefore, the court did not address whether his counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient. However, recognizing the significant liberty deprivation involved in SVPA commitments, the court exercised its supervisory powers to require trial courts to inform defendants of potential SVPA consequences when pleading guilty or no contest to a qualifying offense. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed on the ground that Tellez had not demonstrated prejudice. View "In re Tellez" on Justia Law

David Meinhardt, a police officer, was suspended for 44 hours by the City of Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, a decision upheld by the City of Sunnyvale Personnel Board. Meinhardt filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, challenging the suspension. On August 6, 2020, the court issued an order denying the petition. The City served Meinhardt with a notice of entry of this order on August 14, 2020. Subsequently, on September 25, 2020, the court entered a formal judgment, which Meinhardt served on the City on September 22, 2020.The Fourth Appellate District, Division One, dismissed Meinhardt's appeal as untimely, holding that the August 6 order was the final judgment from which the appeal should have been taken. The court reasoned that the order was sufficiently final to constitute the judgment, thus starting the 60-day period for filing an appeal.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to resolve the issue of when the time to appeal begins in administrative mandate proceedings. The court held that the time to appeal starts with the entry of a formal judgment or the service of notice of entry of judgment, not with the filing of an order or other ruling. The court emphasized the importance of clear, bright-line rules to avoid confusion and ensure that parties do not inadvertently forfeit their right to appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, finding that Meinhardt's appeal, filed within 60 days of the entry of the formal judgment, was timely. View "Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, employees of a hospital operated by Alameda Health System (AHS), alleged that AHS violated California labor laws by denying meal and rest breaks, failing to keep accurate payroll records, and not paying full wages. They sought civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).The Alameda County Superior Court sustained AHS’s demurrer without leave to amend, concluding that AHS, as a public entity, was not subject to the Labor Code provisions cited by plaintiffs. The court also dismissed the PAGA claim, reasoning that public entities are not “persons” subject to PAGA penalties.The California Court of Appeal reversed in part, holding that AHS was not exempt from the meal and rest break requirements or the wage payment statutes. It distinguished AHS from state agencies, noting that the enabling statute indicated AHS was not an agency, division, or department of the county. However, the court agreed that AHS was exempt from the wage statement requirements and that it was not a “person” subject to default PAGA penalties.The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment. It held that the Legislature intended to exempt public employers, including hospital authorities like AHS, from the Labor Code provisions governing meal and rest breaks and related wage payment statutes. The Court also concluded that public entities are not subject to PAGA penalties for the violations alleged. The case was remanded to the trial court to reinstate its ruling on the demurrer and conduct any further proceedings as appropriate. View "Stone v. Alameda Health System" on Justia Law

The case involves Business and Professions Code section 7451, enacted through Proposition 22, which classifies app-based drivers for companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash as independent contractors rather than employees, provided certain conditions are met. This classification exempts these drivers from California workers’ compensation laws, which typically apply to employees. Plaintiffs, including several individuals and unions, argue that section 7451 conflicts with article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution, which grants the Legislature plenary power to create and enforce a complete system of workers’ compensation.The Alameda County Superior Court found Proposition 22 unconstitutional, reasoning that it improperly limited the Legislature’s power to govern workers’ compensation, a power deemed "unlimited" by the state Constitution. The court held that the people must amend the Constitution through an initiative constitutional amendment, not an initiative statute, to impose such limitations. Consequently, the court invalidated Proposition 22 in its entirety.The California Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that article XIV, section 4 does not preclude the electorate from using its initiative power to legislate on workers’ compensation matters. The court reasoned that the Legislature’s power under article XIV, section 4 is not exclusive and that Proposition 22 does not conflict with this constitutional provision. The court did, however, affirm the invalidation of certain severable provisions of Proposition 22 not at issue in this appeal.The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment, agreeing that section 7451 does not conflict with article XIV, section 4. The court held that the Legislature’s plenary power under article XIV, section 4 is not exclusive and does not preclude the electorate from enacting legislation through the initiative process. The court did not address whether other provisions of Proposition 22 improperly constrain the Legislature’s authority, as those issues were not presented in this case. View "Castellanos v. State of California" on Justia Law

This case involves five large water utilities and an association representing investor-owned water utilities' interests, collectively referred to as the Water Companies. The Water Companies sought to overturn an order by the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) that eliminated a conservation-focused ratesetting mechanism known as the Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (WRAM). The WRAM was designed to encourage water conservation by decoupling a water company's revenue from the amount of water sold. The Commission's order to eliminate the WRAM was not based on the merits of the mechanism but on procedural issues.The Commission's decision to eliminate the WRAM was made in a proceeding that was ostensibly focused on improving the accuracy of water sales forecasts. The Water Companies argued that the Commission did not provide adequate notice that the elimination of the WRAM was one of the issues to be considered in the proceeding.The Supreme Court of California agreed with the Water Companies. The court found that the Commission's scoping memos, which are supposed to outline the issues to be considered in a proceeding, did not provide adequate notice that the WRAM's elimination was on the table. The court concluded that the Commission's failure to give adequate notice required the order to be set aside. The court did not rule on the merits of the WRAM itself. View "Golden State Water Co. v. Public Utilities Com." on Justia Law