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.
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.
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.
