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 brief CSAC filed in this case advocates for the ability of
local government to exercise their police powers over sober
living homes and substance abuse treatment facilities through
non-discriminatory zoning and other land use regulations.
CSAC’s brief was drafted by Rachel Lerman at Barnes and
Thornburg, LLP in Los Angeles.
In furtherance of CSAC’s policy platform opposing policies that
have negative impacts on health and wellbeing outcomes, impose
county cost shifts, or increase administrative burdens in
healthcare delivery, CSAC has filed an amicus brief in a case
pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the
federal “public charge” rule, which would condition lawful
immigration status on an individual not accepting SNAP
assistance, Section 8 housing assistance, Section 8 project-based
rental assistance, Medicaid (with certain exceptions), and
Section 9 public housing. CSAC’s brief, jo
Do Proposition 218 challenges to new taxes and fees require
exhaustion of administrative remedies? In this amicus
brief, CSAC argues that the answer to that question is yes, and
that the exhaustion requirement is needed to ensure that agencies
can know challenges to their actions will be limited to those
they have had opportunity to address. The brief was drafted
by Dan Hentschke in the Santa Barbara City Attorney’s Office,
Lufti Kharuf at Best Best & Krieger in San Diego, and Michael
Colantuono at Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley in Grass Valley.
In this CEQA case, CSAC has filed an amicus brief emphasizing
that local governments must be granted deference in interpreting
their own land use policies, and in making determinations about
whether a project is consistent with the agency’s policies and
general plan. The brief was drafted by Adam Hoffman at
Hanson Bridgett in Sacramento.
CSAC has filed an amicus brief asking the Court of Appeal to
provide clarity concerning a trial court ruling and injunction
that potentially impacts a wide variety of Executive Orders that
counties and other public agencies rely upon to maintain
continuity of services in emergencies. The brief notes that
the lack of clarity in the trial court’s order has created
uncertainty about the validity of orders, many of which were
requested by counties, involving not only COVID, but also
wildfires and extreme heat emergencies.
CSAC has filed an amicus brief in the federal Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeal in a case the addresses application of a neutral
land use regulation designed to revitalize a downtown area to a
religious institution. The amicus brief, drafted by
Victoria Wong in the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, makes
the point that a local government’s police power that is applied
in an non-discriminatory manner and provides the religious
institution with viable alternatives does not violate the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
This case looks at the tools that are available to local
governments to manage public meetings. In particular, this
case examines the ability to limit public comments on an agenda
item to the subject matter under consideration. CSAC’s
amicus brief, drafted by Javan Rad in the Pasadena City
Attorney’s Office, argues that local governments have a great
deal of discretion in managing their meetings, and there is no
First Amendment violation in a point of order requesting a public
speaker to address the matter under consideration.
The California Supreme Court will be considering whether a person
seeking to challenge whether a member of the legislative body has
been properly seated must first seek leave from the Attorney
General (a process known as quo warranto) before filing the
lawsuit. CSAC’s amicus brief, drafted by Karun Tilak and
Stephanie Safdi in the Santa Clara County Counsel’s Office,
argues that quo warranto is required to ensure orderly public
administration.
This case addresses the circumstances under which CEQA requires a
draft Environmental Impact Report to be recirculated for public
review and comment. CSAC’s brief, drafted by Christian
Marsh at Downy Brand in San Francisco, argues that lead agencies
are entitled to deference in their decisions on whether to
recirculate a draft document, and that adding new information to
a draft that supports the same conclusions does not require
recirculation.
This case involves the issue of whether a LAFCO can require
indemnification agreements from applicants. CSAC’s brief
provides the court with the rationale for allowing such
agreements.The brief was drafted by John Castro in the Santa
Clara County Counsel’s Office.
CSAC has filed an amicus brief in a case raising the issue of
when changes to a project require recirculating an Environmental
Impact Report under CEQA. CSAC’s brief was drafted by
Whitman Manley at Remy Moose Manley in Sacramento.
This case challenges the ability of a regional water board from
imposing conditions on a project after the EIR has been certified
and project construction is underway. CSAC’s brief,
prepared by Kathryn Oehlschlager at Downey Brand in San
Francisco, argues that that regional board was required to raise
its concerns about the project during the EIR process, and that
having failed to do so, it was precluded from later imposing
mitigations on the project.
CSAC was invited by the Court of Appeal to file a brief in this
case, which raises the issue of what type of stock is relevant
for determining a change in ownership of property for purposes of
property tax reassessment. CSAC’s brief supporting the Los
Angeles County Assessor was drafted by its Litigation Counsel
Jennifer Henning.
CSAC has filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to
regulatory changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (“SNAP”). The new rules remove a state’s discretion
to seek a waiver for certain work requirements for areas of high
unemployment or few available jobs. CSAC’s brief, drafted
by Meaghan VerGow at O’Melveny and Myers in Washington, D.C. and
a team of lawyers in the Los Angeles County Counsel’s Office,
highlights the serious policy implications of the new rules,
particularly in light of skyrocketing unemployment and job losses
caused by COVID-19 closures.
CSAC has filed an amicus brief in a case that will determine
whether attorneys’ fees are available under Revenue and Taxation
Code section 1161.6 on remand where the remand is only ordered to
correct the assessed value. CSAC’s amicus brief, drafted by
Walter DeLorrell in the San Diego County Counsel’s Office, argues
that allowing attorneys’ fees in such a circumstance is not
warranted under the statute, and to emphasize the public interest
in assuring that public funds are not expended on unauthorized
attorneys’ fee awards in property tax matters.
This case addresses how to determine whether a tax measure is a
general tax (requiring a majority vote) or a special tax
(requiring a 2/3 vote). CSAC’s amicus brief, drafted by
Benjamin Fay and Carolyn Liu at Jarvis, Fay and Gibson in
Oakland, sets out the relevant statutes and applicable case law
on this issue, and argues that a tax is not a “special tax”
merely because it identifies funding priorities.
CSAC has filed an amicus brief in the Court of Appeal in a
case that will decide whether certain requirements of a municipal
storm and sewer water discharge permit are mandates under the
California Constitution requiring reimbursement to cities and
counties for costs. CSAC’s brief was drafted by Shawn
Hagerty and Rebecca Andrews at Best Best & Krieger in San Diego,
and Christina Snider in the San Diego County Counsel’s Office.
The United States Supreme Court will be considering whether
reducing the penalty for violating the individual mandate in the
Affordable Care Act (ACA) to $0 renders the ACA
unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals concluded that the
“individual mandate is unconstitutional because it can no longer
be read as a tax, and there is no other constitutional provision
that justifies this exercise of congressional power.”
However, the court left open the question of whether the
individual mandate could be severed from the rest of the
ACA. CSAC’s amicus brief is based on its adopted policy
platform opposing shifts in health costs to counties, and
opposing efforts to “reverse expansions to the Medi-Cal program,
which will shift the responsibility of providing these
individuals with healthcare from the Medi-Cal program to
counties, which are required to provide services to the medically
indigent.”
CSAC has filed a brief in the US Supreme Court on the issue of
what standards the court should apply when evaluating an
officer’s use of force. After an unsuccessful effort in the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, CSAC’s brief argues that Supreme
Court review is needed because the Ninth Circuit is not following
the Supreme Court’s established standards for evaluating
constitutional claims involving use of force when there is a
mistaken, but reasonable, belief that a suspect is holding and
refusing the drop a weapon. CSAC’s brief was drafted by Lee
Roistacher at Daley & Heft in Solana Beach.
This case presents the question of what duty is owed by a county
to a high-speed cyclist training on county roads. CSAC’s
amicus brief, drafted by CSAC Litigation Counsel Jennifer
Henning, argues that the primary assumption of risk doctrine
applies and the County therefore owes no duty to such a cyclist
in the event of injury.
