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 question of whether siblings have First
Amendment association rights with each other, and if so, what
test is used to determine whether those rights have been
established. CSAC’s brief, drafted by Lee Roistacher
at Dean Gazzo Roistacher in Solana Beach, asks the court to
consider the importance of being able to identify all potential
plaintiffs for the purposes of settling cases in resolving this
issue.
CSAC has filed an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court
challenging the State’s view that it can condition unrelated
state funding on a local agencies willingness to perform new or
expanded services or programs without state subventions.
The brief, drafted by CSAC’s Litigation Counsel Jennifer Henning,
argues that allowing the State to avoid its obligation to provide
subvention in this way is counter to case law and the voters’
intent in adopting the constitutional provisions prohibiting
unfunded mandates.
This case raises the issue of whether the federal Tobacco Control
Act preempts local ordinances prohibiting the sale of
flavored tobacco products. CSAC’s amicus brief,
drafted by Rachel Bloomekatz at Bloomekatz Law in Columbus, Ohio,
sets out the law on federal preemption that preserves local
control.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is considering the issue of
whether a County should be considered an “employer” of IHSS
providers for purposes of Fair Labor Standards Act overtime
liability. CSAC’s amicus brief provides the court with context
concerning the IHSS program, noting that IHSS recipients are
granted the ability to hire, fire, train, and control working
conditions of providers, and counties are therefore not FLSA
employers. CSAC’s brief was drafted by its Litigation Counsel
Jennifer Henning.
The California Supreme Court is considering whether a proposed
LPS has a right not to testify at the trial on his or her
conservatorship. CSAC’s amicus brief, which was prepared by
William Sias in the Los Angeles County Counsel’s Office, reviews
the case law on the differences between criminal and
conservatorship proceedings, and why the right not to testify at
trial should not be imposed from the criminal context into LPS
conservatorship trials.
This case arises under the Housing Accountability Act’s
requirement that a project is “deemed consistent” with objective
standards if there is substantial evidence that would allow a
reasonable person to conclude that the project is consistent,
regardless of what the local agency governing board
decides. CSAC’s brief argues that the provision has no
bearing on a local agency’s interpretation of its own
enactments. The brief also explains what an objective
standard is for purposes of the statute, and raising some
constitutional concerns with the statutory provision. CSAC’s
brief was drafted by RCRC’s General Counsel Arthur Wylene.
This case involves the relationship between Prop. 218 and
franchise fee agreements. CSAC amicus brief, which was
drafted by Lutfi Kharuf at Best Best & Krieger in San Diego,
notes that franchise fee agreements are subject to referenda, and
that the fees are limited by negotiations and market forces.
CSAC is encouraging the United States Supreme Court to hear a
case out of Cook County, Illinois, raising a critical issue: What
standard do courts apply in reviewing claims challenging medical
conditions of confinement in jails brought by pretrial
detainees? The federal Courts of Appeals are divided on
this issue, with some concluding that such claims should be
evaluated in the same manner as convicted prisoners, and other
courts, including the Ninth Circuit in California, finding that a
lesser standard of review should apply to claims brought by
pretrial detainees. CSAC’s brief was drafted by Gregory
Champagne of the St. Charles Parish Sheriff’s Office in
Louisiana.
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.
