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.
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.
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 participating as an amicus curiae in the United States
Supreme Court in a case addressing how Section 1983 interplays
with the requirement to
provide Miranda warnings. CSAC’s briefs – one
filed in support of the petition for certiorari and the other
filed on the merits after the Supreme Court granted review –
highlight the conflict among the Courts of Appeals on this issue,
and argues that Section 1983 should not extend to the
prophylactic Miranda rule for both legal and
practical reasons. The briefs were written by 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.
