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.
For purposes of making special assessments on property under
Proposition 218, what constitutes a special benefit versus a
public benefit? This case takes on that issue. CSAC’s brief,
drafted by Kevin Siegel at Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP in
Oakland, argues that under the constitutional and statutory
provisions and applicable case law, special benefits are properly
assessed even if they have a collateral or incidental benefit to
the public at large.
This case addresses the issue of how Government Code section
6254, subdivision (f)(1) – the provision requiring release of
certain arrest records – can be harmonized with Penal Code
section 13300 – the provision prohibiting release of certain
arrest records. CSAC’s brief, which was drafted by Jennifer
Henning, CSAC Litigation Counsel, argues that the statutes are
harmonized by finding that contemporaneous arrest records must be
disclosed as a check on government action and to serve the
immediate need of members of the public to know where an
individual is being held, but identifying records that are no
longer contemporaneous are exempt from disclosure under the
Public Records Act.
The California Supreme Court is considering whether a parent in a
juvenile dependency case can appeal a case based only on the
alleged stigma of having a child removed, even when the child is
returned and the juvenile court ultimately does not take
jurisdiction of the case. CSAC’s brief, prepared by its Associate
Counsel Laura Hirahara, argues that such moot cases should not be
allowed to go forward on appeal in order to protect finality for
the minors and to promote judicial efficiency in the face of what
are already very high case loads in the dependency system.
CSAC is urging the United States Supreme Court to review a case
addressing how Section 1983 interplays with the requirement to
provide Miranda warnings. The brief highlights the
conflict among the Courts of Appeals on this issue, and argues
that Section 1983 should not extend to the prophylactic
Miranda rule. The brief was written by C. Harker Rhodes
at Kirkland & Ellis, LLP in Washington, D.C.
CSAC has filed an amicus brief in a case addressing an ordinance
that provides for the removal and destruction of bulky items left
in public spaces. The brief argues that even if it is
unconstitutional for the City to destroy such property, the
removal and storage provisions of the ordinance should remain in
place. The brief further argues that local government need
flexibility to address the impacts of the homelessness crises,
including the ability to remove bulky property from public spaces
for health and safety. The brief was prepared by Theane Evangelis
at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP in Los Angeles.
The issue presented in this case is whether a public entity be
held liable under Government Code section 830.8 for failure to
warn of an allegedly dangerous design of public property that is
subject to Government Code section 830.6 design immunity. CSAC’s
amicus brief argues that allowing plaintiffs to hold public
agencies liable for failing to warn of dangers inherent in an
otherwise immune design undermines the legislative and policy
aims of the Government Claims Act’s design-immunity provisions.
The brief was drafted by Alexandra Atencio and Adam Hofmann of
Hanson Bridgett LLP in San Francisco.
This case will consider when a government entity creates an
implied vested right to a retirement benefit. CSAC’s brief, which
was prepared by Daphne Anneet at Burke, Williams and Sorensen in
Los Angeles, argues that retirement rights are only vested when
the intent to do so is unmistakably clear, and the counties need
flexibility in addressing their budgetary needs.
CSAC has filed a brief supporting San Diego County’s request for
US Supreme Court review of a case that raises the issue of the
appropriate legal standard for evaluating medical care claims
brought by pre-trial jail detainees. CSAC’s brief urges the Court
to grant review given the split of opinion among the Courts of
Appeals on this issue. The brief was drafted by CSAC’s Litigation
Counsel, Jennifer Henning, and Lee Roistacher at Dean Gazzo
Roistacher in Solana Beach.
The issue in this case is whether the harmless error standard
applies to juvenile dependency court hearings. CSAC’s amicus
brief, drafted by Johannah Hartley in the Santa Barbara County
Counsel’s Office, argues that using the harmless error standard
in dependency proceedings advances the best interest of the minor
while protecting the rights of the parents.
This case raises the issue of whether a local prohibition against
unlicensed cannabis activities is preempted by State law. CSAC’s
brief, which was drafted by Jeffrey Dunn of Best Best & Krieger
in Irvine, argues that criminal enforcement of a local facilities
prohibition is not preempted, but rather it is vital that
counties maintain their constitutional police power
authority to enforce their own laws regarding cannabis.
Among the issues in this case is whether, in negotiating tribal
gaming compacts, the State can ask the Tribe to negotiate
off-reservation impacts without requiring specific meaningful
concessions. CSAC’s brief, consistent with its policy
platform, emphasizes the importance of local agreements to
mitigate offsite impacts. It was drafted by CSAC’s
Associate Counsel Laura Hirahara.
This case raises the issue of whether an employer can be held
liable under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for one
utterance of a racial slur by one employee to another employee
when the offending employee was promptly disciplined, and the no
further incidents occurred. CSAC’s amicus brief, drafted by
Ryan McGinley-Stempel of the Renne Public Law Group in San
Francisco, argues against such a strict liability standard.
This case raises the question of whether siblings have First
Amendment association rights with each other, and if so, what
test is used to determine whether those rights have been
established. CSAC’s brief, drafted by Lee Roistacher
at Dean Gazzo Roistacher in Solana Beach, asks the court to
consider the importance of being able to identify all potential
plaintiffs for the purposes of settling cases in resolving this
issue.
CSAC has filed an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court
challenging the State’s view that it can condition unrelated
state funding on a local agencies willingness to perform new or
expanded services or programs without state subventions.
The brief, drafted by CSAC’s Litigation Counsel Jennifer Henning,
argues that allowing the State to avoid its obligation to provide
subvention in this way is counter to case law and the voters’
intent in adopting the constitutional provisions prohibiting
unfunded mandates.
This case raises the issue of whether the federal Tobacco Control
Act preempts local ordinances prohibiting the sale of
flavored tobacco products. CSAC’s amicus brief,
drafted by Rachel Bloomekatz at Bloomekatz Law in Columbus, Ohio,
sets out the law on federal preemption that preserves local
control.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is considering the issue of
whether a County should be considered an “employer” of IHSS
providers for purposes of Fair Labor Standards Act overtime
liability. CSAC’s amicus brief provides the court with context
concerning the IHSS program, noting that IHSS recipients are
granted the ability to hire, fire, train, and control working
conditions of providers, and counties are therefore not FLSA
employers. CSAC’s brief was drafted by its Litigation Counsel
Jennifer Henning.
The California Supreme Court is considering whether a proposed
LPS has a right not to testify at the trial on his or her
conservatorship. CSAC’s amicus brief, which was prepared by
William Sias in the Los Angeles County Counsel’s Office, reviews
the case law on the differences between criminal and
conservatorship proceedings, and why the right not to testify at
trial should not be imposed from the criminal context into LPS
conservatorship trials.
This case arises under the Housing Accountability Act’s
requirement that a project is “deemed consistent” with objective
standards if there is substantial evidence that would allow a
reasonable person to conclude that the project is consistent,
regardless of what the local agency governing board
decides. CSAC’s brief argues that the provision has no
bearing on a local agency’s interpretation of its own
enactments. The brief also explains what an objective
standard is for purposes of the statute, and raising some
constitutional concerns with the statutory provision. CSAC’s
brief was drafted by RCRC’s General Counsel Arthur Wylene.
This case involves the relationship between Prop. 218 and
franchise fee agreements. CSAC amicus brief, which was
drafted by Lutfi Kharuf at Best Best & Krieger in San Diego,
notes that franchise fee agreements are subject to referenda, and
that the fees are limited by negotiations and market forces.
CSAC is encouraging the United States Supreme Court to hear a
case out of Cook County, Illinois, raising a critical issue: What
standard do courts apply in reviewing claims challenging medical
conditions of confinement in jails brought by pretrial
detainees? The federal Courts of Appeals are divided on
this issue, with some concluding that such claims should be
evaluated in the same manner as convicted prisoners, and other
courts, including the Ninth Circuit in California, finding that a
lesser standard of review should apply to claims brought by
pretrial detainees. CSAC’s brief was drafted by Gregory
Champagne of the St. Charles Parish Sheriff’s Office in
Louisiana.
