CSAC sponsors a Litigation Coordination Program that is
administered by the County Counsels’ Association. The program is
directed by the Association’s Litigation Overview Committee,
consisting of county counsels representing all areas of the
state, in conjunction with a litigator coordinator with offices
in Sacramento.
The program monitors litigation of concern to counties statewide,
coordinates the defense of major multi-county litigation,
provides amicus (friend of the court) support where appropriate
and disseminates current information to county counsels in the
form of litigation alerts and updates on cases involving public
law issues.
For more information, contact Jennifer Henning, Executive
Director, County Counsels’ Association of California.
Following is a list of recent briefs that have been filed on
behalf of the Ligitation Coordination Program.
In this case, the Supreme Court will consider whether CEQA
requires public agencies to consider as an environmental impact
the increased social noise generated by student parties that a
student housing project might bring to a community. CSAC’s brief
argues that CEQA does not require analysis of social noise as an
environmental impact, and to require such an analysis would
inject speculation and bias into the environmental review
process, and invite further abuse. CSAC’s brief was prepared by
Kathryn Oehlschlager and Breana Inoshita from Downey Brand LLP in
San Francisco.
The County of Tulare was found liable for a crime committed by a
mother against her child under the “state created danger”
doctrine. In seeking United States Supreme Court review, the
County is asking the Court to reconsider that doctrine. CSAC’s
amicus brief explains how the Ninth Circuit has erroneously
expanded the state created danger doctrine, and by doing so
creates significant burdens and incentives to eliminate local
government programs and services. The brief was drafted by Amy
Hoyt and Greg Kittles at Best Best & Krieger, LLP in
Riverside.
The California Supreme Court will be considering whether a
challenge to non-ad valorem property tax direct charges that are
placed on a county property tax bill, like a PACE program
assessment, must be appealed to the Assessment Appeals Board.
CSAC’s brief, drafted by Los Angeles County Senior Deputy County
Counsel Thomas Parker, argues that answer is no because the AABs
lack jurisdiction over such charges and are not procedurally
equipped to hear PACE appeals.
CSAC is urging the Sixth District to strictly interpret the
provisions of the Government Claims Act and hold that if a
claimant cannot perfect a claim – because it is beyond the
one-year outside limit for relief from an application for leave
to present a late claim – then Government Code section 911.3(b)
cannot be read so broadly as to force a public entity’s waiver of
the untimeliness defense in litigation. CSAC’s brief was prepared
by Javan Rad and Danielle St. Clair in the Pasadena City
Attorney’s Office.
CSAC is encouraging the United States Supreme Court to grant
review in this case, which involves application of Martin v.
City of Boise to civil enforcement of an anti-camping
ordinance in the context of a class action. CSAC’s brief explains
to the Court that while counties in California are proactively
employing many tools and resources to address homelessness,
anti-camping ordinances are also an important tool, but one that
has become mired in uncertainty and unworkability with the way
courts in the Ninth Circuit are interpreting the Martin
decision. CSAC’s brief was created by its Litigation Counsel
Jennifer Henning.
CSAC is supporting an appeal by the City of Sacramento of a broad
injunction preventing the City from clearing encampments during
the summer months under the “state created danger” theory. The
brief argues that the elements of a state created danger were not
met in this case, and that local governments need flexibility to
address encampments while also ensuring the safety of those
living within the encampments. The brief was prepared by Ellen
Van Riper in the Phoenix City Attorney’s Office.
This case is a challenge of application of SB 2 fees to documents
submitted for recordation to the County Recorder. Specifically at
issue is when a single document incorporates two separately
indexable documents, should fees be charged for one document or
two? CSAC’s brief argues that the LA County Recorder properly
charged two fees – one for each separately indexable document –
under authority of the applicable statute and the Document
Recording and Indexing Manual published by the County Recorders’
Association of California.
This case raises the question of whether a public agency should
be liable for harm caused by a retired K9 law enforcement dog
when the dog is sold to its handler, a former police officer who
is no longer employed by the agency. CSAC’s amicus brief, drafted
by Lee Roistacher at Dean Gazzo Roistacher in Solana Beach,
argues that imposing liability in these circumstances would
create negative policy incentives for public agencies that
utilize K9 units.
This is one of a new trend of cases across the country
challenging cannabis licensing programs as violating the Dormant
Commerce Clause. In the case, plaintiff challenges the City of
Sacramento’s cannabis licensing program, which is an equity
program intended to reduce “barriers of entry and participation”
in the cannabis industry to those who “have been negatively
impacted by the disproportionate law enforcement of cannabis
related crimes.” The program prioritizes cannabis storefront
licenses to those who meet the elements of the program, which
include a preference for those who are current or former
residents of the city. CSAC argues that the federal courts should
apply the abstention doctrine to this question, stating “there
are few social policy questions more sensitive than cannabis
regulation in general (and equity programs in particular), and
state law indeed remains unclear on key points that may narrow or
even eliminate any dormant commerce clause questions.” CSAC’s
brief was drafted by RCRC’s General Counsel Arthur Wylene.
The question in this case is whether participation in an
alternative sentence / pre-trial diversion program qualifies as a
“conviction” for purposes of Heck v. Humphrey, which prohibits a
would-be plaintiff from filing a civil action against law
enforcement related to an event for which they pled guilty or
were convicted. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found
the Heck bar does not apply to pre-trial diversion, and CSAC has
asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, arguing that the
Ninth Circuit’s ruling disincentives diversion and dismissal.
CSAC’s brief was drafted by Nadia Sarkis at Miller Bondess in Los
Angeles.
This case addresses whether the Labor Code’s minimum wage and
overtime provisions apply to certain inmates engaged in work
programs in county jails. CSAC’s brief, authored by its
Litigation Counsel Jennifer Henning, argues that the statutory
scheme grants discretion to the Board of Supervisors as to
whether to pay wages. This case is pending before the federal
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the federal court asked the
California Supreme Court to decide the state law question first.
CSAC has filed a brief in both cases.
This case involves a challenge to Berkeley’s ordinance limiting
connections to natural gas for new construction. A panel of the
Ninth Circuit held that the ordinance is preempted by federal law
(Energy Policy and Conservation Act). CSAC is supporting the
City’s effort to have the full Ninth Circuit consider the case.
CSAC’s amicus brief, which was drafted by Amy Turner at
Columbia Law School in New York, argues for broad application of
local police powers and narrow application of federal preemption
standards in order for local governments to adopt ordinances and
regulations that meet local needs.
CSAC defends that use of peak use ratemaking for water usage
against a constitutional challenge in this case. CSAC’s brief was
prepared by Michael Colantuono and Vernetra Gavin from Colantuono
Highsmith & Whatley in Solana Beach.
The California Supreme Court will consider how juvenile courts
should weigh a parent’s substance use disorder when the minor is
of tender age (roughly six years or younger), and how to define
“substance abuse” for these purposes. CSAC’s amicus brief argues
that the DSM definition of substance abuse should not govern in
child dependency cases, and that while a parent’s substance use
disorder is not dispositive for purposes of dependency
jurisdiction, it is a factor that is given more weight when a
minor is of tender years.
Los Angeles County is seeking US Supreme Court review of an
opinion finding the County liable for IHSS overtime as a “joint
employer.” CSAC’s brief argues urges the Court to take up the
case to resolve a split among the federal appellate courts on the
joint employer doctrine, which uniquely impacts local government.
CSAC’s brief was drafted by Derek Cole at Cole Huber LLP in
Roseville.
This case addresses the application of Martin v. City of
Boise to class-wide injunctions against enforcement of
anti-camping ordinances. CSAC’s brief, drafted by Ruth Bond at
the Renne Public Law Group in San Francisco, argues that a
class-wide injunction exceeds the narrow holding in
Martin and provides the court with important information
about the numerous efforts local governments are undertaking to
combat homelessness.
CSAC’s amicus brief in this case pushes back on an attempt to
avoid compliance with the Government Claims Act and allow common
law claims against public entities. The brief was prepared by
Aurelia Razo in the San Diego County Counsel’s Office.
California courts have been struggling with the proper way to
address inadequate inquiries into whether a minor in the
dependency system may be an Indian child. The California Supreme
Court will address the issue, and CSAC’s brief that an automatic
reversal of dependency rulings for ICWA violations is not
warranted by statute. The brief was prepared by Eliza Molk in the
San Diego County Counsel’s Office.
In this case pending before the California Supreme Court, CSAC
explains why there is no state law preemption against a county’s
ability to enforce its cannabis land use regulations. CSAC’s
brief was written by Jeffrey Dunn at Best Best & Krieger in
Irvine.
This case raises the question of whether an abatement action to
remove unlawful encroachments from a county right of way that
create a dangerous condition on the road can be enjoined by the
court through a preliminary injunction when the property owner
brings a CEQA claim. CSAC’s brief, drafted by its Litigation
Counsel Jennifer Henning, argues that injunctions cannot be used
to prevent county road commissioners from abating unlawful
encroachments in the county roadway.
