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 bail bond forfeiture case, CSAC argues that bail bond
enterprises should not be able to avoid otherwise valid bond
forfeitures by asserting that the bond violates a criminal
defendant’s constitutional right when the defendant and his
lawyer did not raise those objections. CSAC’s brief was
drafted by Kavita Narayan in the Santa Clara County Counsel’s
Office.
The California Supreme Court is considering two important child
dependency issues in this case: (1) what standard governs
appellate review of the beneficial parental relationship
exception to adoption; and (2) whether a showing that a parent
has made progress in addressing the issues that led to dependency
is necessary to meet the beneficial parental relationship
exception. CSAC’s brief was drafted by Caitlin Rae and
Tahra Broderson in the San Diego County Counsel’s Office.
This case raises a question of first impression: whether
obtaining an administrative stay order (Code of Civil Procedure
section 1094.5(g)) makes one a “successful party” for purposes of
seeking private attorney general fees. CSAC argues that
because a stay order is not a determination on the merits, any
attorneys’ fees must be sought under a catalyst theory.
CSAC’s brief was drafted by its Litigation Counsel Jennifer
Henning.
When a public agency is considering greenhouse gas emissions and
offsets in its environmental review documents for a climate
action plan, can it consider offsets that occur outside of the
county? CSAC’s amicus brief argues that answer to this
question is yes— “a community’s emissions are those that the
local government has the capacity to affect and influence, not
simply the emissions that happen to be countable within its
boundary.” CSAC’s brief was prepared by Sonoma County
Deputy County Counsel Verne Ball.
This case raises the question of whether revenue generated from
contracts between counties and private businesses amounts to a
tax on the people who use the services provided by the
contractor. CSAC’s amicus brief argues that there is
significant legal and policy support for such contractual
arrangements, and that the revenue generated therefrom is not a
tax on the payor. CSAC’s brief was drafted by Joshua
Heinlein and Jeffrey Michalowski in the San Diego County
Counsel’s Office.
CSAC has joined with 33 other California Cities and Counties
urging the United States Supreme Court review a Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals opinion holding that enforcing anti-camping
ordinances violates the Eighth Amendment right to be free from
cruel and unusual punishment when there is not alternative
shelter space available. CSAC’s brief asks the Court to
clarify the contours of the opinion, and notes how the broad
restriction adopted by the Ninth Circuit makes it more difficult
to provide services to the homeless population in
California. The brief was drafted by Teresa Stricker and
Ryan McGinley-Stempel at the Renne Public Law Group in San
Francisco.
The California Supreme Court is considering the scope of the
State’s prevailing wage law in this case. CSAC’s amicus
brief looks at the history and purpose of the prevailing wage
law, and argues that prevailing wage properly applies to
construction or infrastructure, but not to operational
work. The brief was prepared by Lann McIntyre and Claire
Collins at Lewis Brisbois in San Diego and Los Angeles.
CSAC is supporting Napa County in this case, which raises the
issue of when a local agency must reconsider a project approval
based on events that occur after the project approval.
CSAC’s brief, which was drafted by Brooke Miller in the San Diego
County Counsel’s Office, argues that consideration of this type
of non-record evidence undermines the need for finality, and will
leave investors and developers in a perpetual state of
uncertainty.
In this litigation, oil and gas interests are challenging a
voter-adopted ordinance limiting drilling and fracking. The
issue addressed in CSAC’s amicus brief is whether such an
ordinance is preempted by State or federal law. CSAC’s
brief urges the court to apply preemption principles is a way
that preserves local control and local police power authority.
In this Public Records Act case, CSAC has filed an amicus brief
taking the position that attorneys’ fees should not be awarded
against counties that take action to protect their residents’
personal rights, including the constitutional right to
privacy. The brief was drafted by Elisa Tolentino in the San
Jose City Attorney’s Office.
At the request of the federal court of appeals, the California
Supreme Court will be considering whether prevailing wage applies
to work done on “rolling stock” as opposed to “fixed
works.” CSAC’s amicus brief in the case was drafted by Lann
G. McIntyre at Lewis Brisbois in San Diego.
CSAC is supporting San Diego County in this inverse condemnation
case, arguing that a county cannot be held liable for damages
caused by a pipe that the county explicitly declined to accept
into the county system. CSAC’s brief was drafted by its
Associate Counsel Laura Hirahara.
The trial court in this case concluded that victim restitution
orders expire in ten years if they are not renewed by a
county. CSAC’s amicus brief challenges that conclusion,
raising the policy and statutory reasons that victim restitution
is different than other types of civil money judgments. The
brief was drafted by CSAC’s 2019 summer law clerk Brittany
Gamlen.
This case raises the issue of when the justification to use
deadly force ceases to exist. Specifically, can a jury
conclude that an officer is justified in firing a first shot, but
unjustified in firing a subsequent shot just seconds later?
CSAC’s amicus brief was drafted by Lee Roistacher at Daley & Heft
in Solana Beach.
CSAC has filed an amicus brief in a case pending in the
California Supreme Court that will address the following issue:
Does the California Public Records Act permit a public agency to
shift the cost of redacting exempt information from electronic
records to the party making the request for the records although
the cost of redaction cannot be required for paper records?
CSAC’s brief argues that local agencies are permitted by statute
to recoup such cost, and provides some context to the resources
required to comply with electronic records redactions.
This case raises the question of whether an agency’s adoption of
water rates are subject to referendum. The Court of Appeal
found that setting water rates is a legislative act, and
therefore is subject to referendum. The California Supreme
Court granted review. CSAC’s brief in the Supreme Court,
which was drafted by Michael Colantuono of Colantuono, Highsmith
& Whatley in Grass Valley, argues that such levies are not
subject to referendum, but are subject to the people’s initiative
power.
CSAC has filed a brief in support of Stanislaus County in the
California Supreme Court on the issue of whether issuance of a
groundwater well permit under the county’s ordinance is
ministerial, or whether it is discretionary and thus triggers
CEQA review. CSAC’s brief was drafted by its Associate
Counsel Laura Hirahara.
CSAC has filed an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court on
the issue of whether a defendant (in this case, a public agency)
who commits an intentional tort can be required to pay 100% of a
plaintiff’s damages when the defendant is only responsible for a
small percentage of the damages caused. The brief, which
was prepared by Derek Cole at Cole Huber, argues that Prop. 51’s
comparative fault requirements prevents such liability.
Thus, where the county was only 20% responsible for plaintiff’s
damages, it could not be required to pay 100% of the damages
award.
This case raises the question of whether private counsel
representing a minor in an appeal in a dependency matter is
entitled to attorneys’ fees under the private Attorney General
statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5). CSAC’s
brief, drafted by Elizabeth McDonald Muniz in the San Francisco
City Attorney’s Office, argues that because minors are provided
counsel by the courts, allowing attorneys’ fees for private
counsel is not authorized by statute and creates perverse
incentives that contravene the purposes of the child welfare
system.
CSAC filed a brief in the California Supreme Court on the issue
of how remedies are applied under the Unfair Competition
Law. CSAC’s brief, drafted by Yvonne Mere and Owen Clement
in the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, pushes back against
the arguments that UCL remedies cannot be enforced statewide.
