Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS) challenging the County of Los Angeles and its Office of the Inspector General (OIG) over the implementation of Penal Code sections 13670 and 13510.8. These sections, effective January 1, 2022, prohibit law enforcement gang participation and authorize revocation of peace officer certification for serious misconduct, including gang participation. On May 12, 2023, the OIG sent letters to 35 Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) deputies, directing them to participate in interviews about law enforcement gangs and to display and provide photographs of certain tattoos. ALADS filed an unfair labor practice claim and sought injunctive relief, arguing that the interviews violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) and the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Ordinance (ERO).The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining the OIG from conducting the interviews until the County completed its meet-and-confer obligations under the MMBA or until the unfair labor practice claim was adjudicated. The court found that the interview directive had significant and adverse effects on the deputies' working conditions, thus triggering the duty to meet and confer.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the OIG’s interview directive, which required deputies to disclose their own and their colleagues' gang affiliations under threat of discipline, had significant and adverse effects on working conditions. The court held that these effects necessitated bargaining under the MMBA. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in balancing the interim harm, noting the lack of compelling need for immediate investigation and the potential irreparable harm to ALADS from the County’s failure to meet and confer. View "Assn. for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. County of L.A." on Justia Law

Donald McCurdy appealed an order denying his petition for relief from the notice requirement of the Government Claims Act. McCurdy had submitted a claim for damages to the County of Riverside over a year after the Court of Appeal granted his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which found that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from a public defender during a probation revocation hearing. The County denied his claim, stating it was not presented within six months of accrual as required by section 911.2. McCurdy applied for leave to file a late claim, which the County also denied. He then filed a petition for relief from the notice requirement in the trial court, arguing his claim did not accrue until the remittitur issued on the writ of habeas corpus and that he had one year to present his claim. Alternatively, he argued that he was misadvised by three attorneys about the claim period.The Superior Court of Riverside denied McCurdy's petition, finding that his claim accrued when his probation was revoked and was therefore untimely under either the six-month or one-year period. The court also found that McCurdy failed to show mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court concluded that McCurdy's claim arose in tort and fell under the six-month claims period in section 911.2. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that McCurdy did not show mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Consequently, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order. View "McCurdy v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law

A disabled woman, T.M.B., was sexually assaulted by an employee of West Mont, a nonprofit organization contracted by the State of Montana to provide community-based services for developmentally disabled individuals. T.M.B. sued both the State and West Mont, alleging they owed her a nondelegable duty of care. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants, concluding neither owed a nondelegable duty of care for the employee’s criminal acts. T.M.B. appealed.The District Court of the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County, found that the State had satisfied its statutory obligations by contracting with West Mont to provide services and did not owe a nondelegable duty to T.M.B. because she was not under state custody or control. The court also found that West Mont did not owe a nondelegable duty, as there was no statute or rule explicitly stating such a duty existed for state contractors operating community homes.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It affirmed the District Court’s decision regarding the State, agreeing that the State did not have a close, continuing relationship with T.M.B. that would impose a nondelegable duty. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision regarding West Mont, finding that the relationship between West Mont and T.M.B. was sufficiently close and continuing to impose a nondelegable duty under Restatement (Second) of Agency § 214. The court held that West Mont had a duty to protect T.M.B. from harm due to her dependence on their care and supervision. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "T.M.B v. West Mont" on Justia Law

Houston Police Department Officers Richard Corral and C. Goodman were involved in a high-speed chase of a suspect who had solicited an undercover detective and fled in a stolen vehicle. During the pursuit, Corral's patrol car hit a curb and collided with a pickup truck driven by Ruben Rodriguez and Frederick Okon. Corral claimed the accident occurred because his brakes did not stop him in time. Rodriguez and Okon sued the City of Houston, alleging Corral's negligent driving caused their injuries.The trial court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment, which argued that Corral was protected by official immunity because he acted in good faith and that the emergency exception to the Tort Claims Act applied. The Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas affirmed, holding that a fact issue existed regarding whether Corral knew his brakes were not functioning properly, which precluded summary judgment.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and concluded that Corral acted in good faith as a matter of law. The Court found that Corral's statement about the brakes not working did not reasonably support an inference that he had prior awareness of any defect. The Court emphasized that the summary-judgment evidence showed Corral's brakes were functional but did not stop him in time. The Court also held that the City conclusively established Corral's good faith in making the turn during the pursuit, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a fact issue to controvert this proof.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and rendered judgment dismissing the case, holding that the City’s governmental immunity was not waived under the Tort Claims Act because Corral was protected by official immunity. View "CITY OF HOUSTON v. RODRIGUEZ" on Justia Law

The Austin American-Statesman requested the University of Texas at Austin to disclose the final results of disciplinary hearings involving sex offenses. The University refused to provide the information without seeking a decision from the Office of the Attorney General (OAG). The Statesman sued the University, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the disclosure of the records.The trial court granted the Statesman’s motion for summary judgment, ordering the University to produce the requested information. The court found that the University was required to seek an OAG decision and that its failure to do so raised the presumption that the information was subject to disclosure. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the University did not establish a compelling reason for withholding the information and that Section 552.114(b) of the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) did not give the University discretion to withhold the records. The court of appeals also reversed the trial court’s denial of attorney fees to the Statesman.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that Section 552.026 of the PIA grants educational institutions discretion to disclose information in education records if the disclosure is authorized by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The Court concluded that the PIA does not require the release of such information. Additionally, the Court held that the University was not required to seek an OAG decision before withholding the information, as Section 552.114(d) allows educational institutions to redact information without requesting an OAG decision. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and rendered judgment for the University. View "THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN v. GATEHOUSE MEDIA TEXAS HOLDINGS II, INC." on Justia Law

A fugitive led police on a high-speed chase in Austin, during which Officer Bullock collided with Noel Powell's minivan, causing injuries. Powell, who was not at fault, sued the City of Austin for damages. The City claimed immunity under the Tort Claims Act's emergency exception, which applies if the officer was responding to an emergency and did not act with reckless disregard for safety.The trial court denied the City's plea to the jurisdiction, and the City appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed, finding a fact issue regarding whether Officer Bullock's actions were reckless, thus requiring further proceedings.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the officer's conduct did not violate any specific law or ordinance applicable to emergency actions. The court also found that Powell did not raise a fact issue regarding the officer's recklessness. Consequently, the Tort Claims Act did not waive the City's immunity. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and rendered judgment dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. View "THE CITY OF AUSTIN v. POWELL" on Justia Law

Casa Mira Homeowners Association (Casa Mira) applied for a coastal development permit to construct a 257-foot seawall to protect a condominium complex, sewer line, apartment building, and a segment of the Coastal Trail in Half Moon Bay from erosion. The California Coastal Commission (Commission) denied the request for the condominiums and sewer line, built in 1984, but approved a 50-foot seawall for the apartment building, built in 1972, and concluded that relocating the Coastal Trail inland was a feasible alternative to shoreline armoring.The San Mateo County Superior Court granted Casa Mira's petition for a writ of mandate, vacating the Commission's decision. The court found that the Commission misinterpreted "existing structures" in the California Coastal Act to mean structures existing before January 1, 1977, and concluded that the Commission's finding regarding the feasibility of relocating the Coastal Trail was not supported by substantial evidence.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that "existing structures" in section 30235 of the Coastal Act refers to structures that existed before the Act's effective date of January 1, 1977. Therefore, the condominiums and sewer line built in 1984 are not entitled to shoreline armoring. However, the court also found that the Commission's decision to relocate the Coastal Trail inland was not supported by substantial evidence, as the original staff report indicated that rerouting the trail would sacrifice its aesthetic and recreational value and was not a viable alternative.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment regarding the interpretation of "existing structures" but affirmed the trial court's determination that there was no substantial evidence supporting the Commission's finding that armoring was unnecessary to protect the Coastal Trail. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs of appeal. View "Casa Mira Homeowners Assn. v. Cal. Coastal Com." on Justia Law

Thomas Rodenhizer, a U.S. Army veteran, sought an earlier effective date for his veteran benefits, which the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied. He appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. During the appeal, Mr. Rodenhizer passed away, and his mother, Deborah Rodenhizer, moved to be substituted in his place. The Veterans Court denied her motion, vacated the Board’s decision, and dismissed the appeal, stating that Ms. Rodenhizer had not established her right to the benefits.The Veterans Court’s decision was based on the fact that Ms. Rodenhizer had not provided evidence that she requested a determination of accrued-benefits eligibility from the VA within one year of her son’s death, as required by 38 U.S.C. § 5121(c). Additionally, the VA had not made a determination about her eligibility to receive accrued benefits. The Veterans Court concluded that it could not make the factual determination of her eligibility in the first instance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Veterans Court erred in denying the motion to substitute and dismissing the appeal before a final decision was made in the parallel VA proceeding regarding Ms. Rodenhizer’s eligibility as an accrued-benefits claimant. The Federal Circuit vacated the Veterans Court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to hold the appeal and motion to substitute in abeyance pending the outcome of the VA’s determination of Ms. Rodenhizer’s eligibility. The court emphasized that this approach would prevent unnecessary reworking of the same claim and save families from facing unnecessary administrative hurdles. View "RODENHIZER v. MCDONOUGH " on Justia Law

Two Starbucks employees, Echo Nowakowska and Tristan Bussiere, were terminated after engaging in labor organizing activities. Starbucks claimed the terminations were due to policy violations and poor performance. However, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that the terminations were motivated by the employees' organizing activities, violating Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRB sought enforcement of its order, while Starbucks cross-petitioned for review on several issues, including the constitutionality of the NLRB's administrative law judges (ALJs) and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the NLRB's conclusions.The ALJ concluded that Starbucks failed to prove it would have terminated the employees absent their organizing activities. The ALJ found substantial evidence that the terminations and reduction in hours were motivated by anti-union animus, supported by internal communications and the timing of disciplinary actions. The NLRB adopted the ALJ's findings and ordered Starbucks to reinstate the employees and compensate them for lost earnings and benefits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Starbucks' constitutional challenge to the ALJ removal protections and found that Starbucks failed to demonstrate injury from these protections. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the NLRB's conclusions that the terminations and reduction in hours were due to the employees' organizing activities. Additionally, the court upheld the NLRB's finding that Starbucks knew about the employees' recording activities before their terminations, precluding the use of after-acquired evidence to limit remedies.However, the court vacated the portion of the NLRB's order requiring Starbucks to compensate the employees for direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms, finding it exceeded the Board's authority under the NLRA. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. View "NLRB v. Starbucks Corp" on Justia Law

Andrew J. Winterbottom, a veteran, was awarded a 30% disability rating for his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which was later increased to 50%. He appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals seeking a higher rating. During a Board hearing in June 2021, the judge questioned Winterbottom about specific violent episodes, which he later claimed demonstrated judicial bias. In May 2022, the Board denied a higher rating, concluding that his violent behavior was not unprovoked.Winterbottom appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision and exhibited bias. The Veterans Court partially agreed, remanding the case because the Board did not adequately explain why it gave less weight to a private counselor's opinion. However, the court found no bias warranting reassignment, stating the judge's questions aimed to determine if the violent conduct was provoked.Winterbottom then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal, stating it lacked jurisdiction to review non-final orders from the Veterans Court. The court noted that exceptions to the finality requirement, as outlined in Williams v. Principi, did not apply to Winterbottom's case. The court also declined to create a new exception for judicial bias claims, suggesting that such claims should be raised through a mandamus petition or after a final judgment. Thus, the appeal was dismissed. View "WINTERBOTTOM v. MCDONOUGH " on Justia Law