CSAC Litigation Coordination Program

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.” 

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.

This case addresses the issue of whether CEQA’s administrative record requirements effectively serve as a record retention statute that requires a lead agency to retain all email for the duration of a project’s consideration.  CSAC amicus brief, drafted by its Litigation Counsel Jennifer Henning, argues that nothing in the CEQA administrative record statute requires lead agencies to retain all drafts and transitory, unofficial email.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.