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, CSAC challenges the legality of statutory
provisions that impose penalties against local government for
exercising their otherwise lawful powers. CSAC’s brief was
drafted by Michael Colantuono and Abigail Mendez at Colantuono,
Highsmith & Whatley in Grass Valley.
CSAC has filed an amicus brief urging the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals to grant rehearing to this case that expanded the holding
of Martin v. City of Boise in several ways, including
authorizing a class action in jurisdictions where there are more
homeless individuals than there are available shelter beds.
CSAC’s brief, drafting by its Litigation Counsel Jennifer
Henning, argues that such class certification violates court
rules and notes that camping ordinances are just one of many
tools local governments are using to address the complex problem
of homelessness.
The case discusses the specificity required by CEQA in regulatory
programs, such as a fire mitigation program. CSAC’s brief,
prepared by R. Tyson Sohagi at The Sohagi Law Group in Los
Angeles, explains why CEQA gives local agencies project
description flexibility and urges the court not to rely on an
early case requiring too much specificity in a project
description too early in the process
(Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com v. City of Los Angeles).
CSAC’s amicus brief in this case addresses the role of public
entities as market participants in commercial enterprises, which
the brief argues should not be diminished even though the public
entities have the ability in other circumstances to impose
criminal penalties for violations of their ordinances. CSAC’s
brief was drafted by Dolores Bastian Dalton of Goldfarb & Lipman
LLP in Oakland.
This case raises the issue of whether the Board of Supervisors or
a 37 Act Retirement Board has authority to create positions and
set salaries for county employees who perform work for the
retirement system. For most 37 Act counties, the retirement
system employees are County employees and their positions and
salaries are set by County ordinance. CSAC’s amicus brief,
prepared by its Litigation Counsel Jennifer Henning, argues that
only the Board of Supervisors can set salaries for County
employees, even the County employees performing work for a 37 Act
retirement system.
This case involves the proper assessment of a sports venue, here
Oracle Park in San Francisco. CSAC’s amicus brief argues that the
so-called “cost approach” used by the San Francisco Assessor is
the proper way to assess the value of property like a sports
venue, and that the Appeals Board’s use of “future functional
obsolescence” was in error. CSAC’s brief was prepared by Rachel
Neil in the Santa Clara County Counsel’s Office.
One of the main issues in this case is whether class wide
injunctive relief is available where plaintiffs have failed to
show any systemic deficiencies in providing access to local
government programs and services to individuals with
disabilities. CSAC’s amicus brief, drafted by Erin Bernstein of
Bradley Bernstein Sands LLP in Oakland, argues that such relief
should not be available because it would contravene existing law
and would mire even the most diligent local governments in
endless litigation.
This case addresses the proper application of preemption of local
government regulation. Here, plaintiffs challenged a local ballot
initiative creating an ordinance regulating oil and gas
operations as preempted by state law. CSAC’s amicus brief argues
that land use regulations such as the one at issue in this case
are not preempted, and that plaintiff’s argument for how
preemption is applied to local regulations would undermine
well-settled legal principles, create confusion and litigation
risk, and chill rightful exercises of local authority. CSAC’s
brief was prepared by Sean Hecht at the UCLA School of Law.
This case raises the issue of whether there is a requirement
under the Americans with Disabilities Act to accommodate requests
to mitigate alleged impacts caused by radiofrequency (RF)
emissions from cellular towers when the Telecommunications Act
specifically and FCC regulations specifically forbid local
agencies from regulating RF emissions. CSAC’s amicus brief,
drafted by Jeffrey Melching at Rutan & Tucker, LLP in Irvine,
argues that plaintiff’s requested accommodations are per se
unreasonable when they are specifically precluded by another
federal statute.
This case raises the question of whether a corporation formed and
owned by CalPERS can avoid property transfer taxes as a
governmental entity. CSAC’s amicus brief argues that if CalPERS
elects to obtain the benefits of a corporate structure, that
corporation cannot also enjoy the benefits of a public entity
(including exemption from transfer taxes) especially at the
expense of local government revenue. CSAC’s brief was prepared by
Ryan Dunn at Colantuono, Highsmith and Whatley in Grass Valley.
In this case, the California Supreme Court will be deciding
whether juvenile courts required to extend reunification efforts
beyond the 18-month review when families have been denied
adequate reunification services in the preceding review period.
CSAC’s amicus brief argues the answer to that question is no
because after reasonable reunification services are provided in
the first 12-months, when the focus of the process is reuniting
families, the process shifts towards permanency for the minor in
order to advance their best interests. CSAC’s amicus brief was
prepared by Alameda Senior Deputy County Counsel Samantha
Stonework-Hand.
This case raises the question of whether the California Insurance
Code prohibits employment practices liability insurance. CSAC’s
amicus brief provides the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
with the practical and policy reasons that obtaining such
insurance is important for public entities. The brief was
prepared by Jeffrey Ehrlich from the Ehrlich Law Firm in
Claremont.
A ballot initiative in San Bernardino County would limit the
members of the Board of Supervisors to one term in office, and
cap their salaries at $5,000 per month, including all benefits
and allowances. CSAC filed a brief in support of the Board,
noting the significant policy considerations at stake in
undercompensation of members of the Board of Supervisors. CSAC’s
brief was drafted by its Litigation Counsel Jennifer Henning.
This case raises the question of the appropriate timing under
CEQA and planning law for adopting general plan implementation
measures. CSAC’s brief, drafted by its Associate Counsel Laura
Hirahara, argues for flexibility in adopting general plan
implementation measures to allow for a thoughtful and details
process.
This case addresses the problem of adult offenders who committed
their offenses when they were minors being sentenced to youth
treatment facilities. Here, the offender is 40 years old, well
beyond the maximum age of 25 years for such facilities. CSAC’s
amicus brief, drafted by Mona Williams in the Santa Clara County
Counsel’s Office, explains the legal and practical difficulties
of a court ruling sentencing an adult offender to a juvenile
facility.
This case involves the application of the Government Claims Act’s
limitations on punitive damages against public entities with
provisions allowing treble damages for some childhood sexual
abuse claims. CSAC’s amicus brief, authored by its litigation
counsel Jennifer Henning, argues that for a statute to override
the Claims Act protections for public entities, it must do so
explicitly. Statutory exceptions to Claims Act protections cannot
be inferred.
This case involves a challenge to Berkeley’s ordinance limiting
connections to natural gas for new construction. 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.
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.
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.
