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.
CSAC successfully sought publication of this opinion, which finds
that a county’s legislative goals in a generally applicable
ordinance are acceptable reasons to decline to impose certain
mitigation measures. The publication request was drafted by
Michael Zischke at Cox, Castle & Nicholson in San Francisco.
This First District opinion holds that a county ordinance
prohibiting the possession of firearms in county parks is not
preempted by Government Code section 53071 (addressing the
registration and licensing of firearms). CSAC’s publication
request was drafted by Jennifer Henning, County Counsels’
Association Executive Director.
CSAC successfully requested publication of this opinion, which
found, among other things, that sheriff deputies had probable
cause to seize a large marijuana grow even when the three owners
had physician recommendations for two ounces of marijuana per
day. The publication request was drafted by Jennifer
Henning at the County Counsels’ Association and Joshua Myers,
Sonoma County Deputy County Counsel.
The State is seeking an immediate stay from the United States
Supreme Court of a three judge panel’s order requiring the State
to release addition prisoner releases. CSAC filed a brief,
drafted by Jennifer Henning at the County Counsels’ Association,
supporting the State’s request for a stay.
CSAC is supporting review of this First District decision in
which the court found, contrary to Landgate v. California Coastal
Commission (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1006, that the county could be
liable for a temporary taking based upon errors made due to a
bona fide legal dispute. CSAC’s letter was drafted by
Andrew Schwartz at Shute Mihaly & Weinberger in San Francisco.
Does the hearing officer in an administrative appeal of the
dismissal of a correctional officer employed by a county
sheriff’s department have the authority to grant a motion under
Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531? CSAC’s
amicus briefs argues that the answer is no, but rather such
motions must be heard by a judge. The brief was drafted by
Crystal Sullivan in the Tulare County Counsel’s Office.
This case addresses the issue of whether interest is due to
cities following the California Supreme Court’s decision in City
of Alhambra v. County of Los Angeles¸ which held the manner in
which many counties calculated the Property Tax Administration
Fee (PTAF) was in error. The CSAC amicus brief argues that
a judgment related to a misallocation of property taxes is not an
action for “damages” that can result in prejudgment
interest. CSAC’s brief was drafted by Dale Gardner in the
Riverside County Counsel’s Office.
The Qualified Patients case is back in the Fourth Appellate
District on the issue of whether the Compassionate Use Act and/or
the MMPA preempt the City’s mass dispensary ban. CSAC’s
brief in support of the City of Anaheim was drafted by Arthur
Wylene, Tehama County Counsel.
CSAC is supporting the County of Los Angeles in its efforts at
rehearing in this case in which the Ninth Circuit concluded, in
direct conflict with Pitts v. County of Kern (1998) 17 Cal.4th
340, that a county can be held liable under Section 1983 for the
policies adopted and implemented by District Attorneys.
CSAC’s brief was drafted by Morris Hill in the San Diego County
Counsel’s Office.
This matter raises the issue, among other things, of whether
Prop. 26 can be applied retroactively to taxes that were passed
before 2010. CSAC’s amicus brief in support of the City of
Redding was drafted by Benjamin Fay at Jarvis Fay Doporto &
Gibson in Oakland.
This case addresses whether Public Utilities Code sections 7901
and 7901.1 preempted the local regulation of telephone lines for
aesthetic and public safety purposes. CSAC’s amicus brief
in support of the City of Livermore was drafted by Javan Rad in
the City of Pasadena City Attorney’s Office.
CSAC filed comments in a pending PERB matter on the following
issue: In light of Government Code section 3511, does PERB have
authority to issue a remedial order applicable to a (mixed)
bargaining unit that includes non-peace officer and peace officer
classifications? If so, what is the source and scope of
PERB’s authority; and what is the relevance of the peach officer
exclusion as set forth in Government Code section 3511 as it
applies to mixed units? CSAC’s comments were drafted by
Timothy Yeung at Renne Sloan in Sacramento.
CSAC is supporting Sonoma County’s efforts as Supreme Court
review of this opinion finding that counties/ IHSS public
authorities and IHSS recipients are joint employers for purposes
of wage and hour laws. CSAC’s support letter was drafted by
Jennifer Henning.
The Ninth Circuit has found that an officer violates the First
Amendment if he makes a decision to book an arrestee (rather than
cite and release) in retaliation for the arrestee’s exercise,
after the moment of arrest, of First Amendment rights, even if
the arrest is supported by probable cause and the booking
decision is authorized under state law. CSAC is supporting
the city’s rehearing petition with a letter drafted by Peter
Keith in the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office.
CSAC is challenging whether attorney’s fees are available under
CCP 1021.5 if the members of the association that brought the
lawsuit have a direct pecuniary interest in the case. The
brief was drafted by Tom Brown and Matthew at Visick, Burke
Williams & Sorensen.
CSAC filed a brief in support of Napa County in this housing
element challenge. The brief emphasizes the plaintiff’s
burden in challenging a housing element, whether evidence outside
of the record is relevant to a housing element challenge, and
what level of specificity is required to exhaust administrative
remedies. The brief was drafted by Jennifer Henning, County
Counsels’ Association.
CSAC successfully requested publication of this opinion upholding
an EIR for a gravel mining operation in Santa Barbara
County. The letter was drafted by Tyson Sohagi at The
Sohagi Law Group in Los Angeles.
In response to a request for further briefing from the court,
CSAC filed a brief addressing whether the full amount billed for
medical treatment is admissible on other issues, such as
noneconomic damages or future medical expenses. The brief
was drafted by David Newdorf of Newdorf Legal in San Francisco.
CSAC has requested depublication of this opinion, which finds
that County Counsel attorney fees incurred in bail bond
forfeiture matters are not “costs” under Penal Code section
1305.3. The letter was drafted by Jennifer Henning, County
Counsels’ Association.
CSAC has filed a brief in this case addressing the application of
Prop. 218 to groundwater charges. The brief was drafted by
Patricia Quilizapa, Aleshire & Wynder in Irvine.
