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 has filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on
the issue of when qualified immunity applies in employment
disciplinary decisions. In the brief, CSAC argues qualified
immunity should be available in a claim that an employee’s
termination violated his First Amendment rights where it was not
clearly established that the employee’s conduct was protected
speech. The brief was prepared by Alison Turner at Greines
Martin in Los Angeles.
This case raises the question of whether the services supported
by rates for water can include the cost of providing sufficient
water flows to allow fire fighters to connect to a hydrant and
fight fires. CSAC’s brief argues that water rates can
properly include the costs of providing sufficient flows to allow
for adequate fire protection. The brief was drafted by
Daniel Hentschke in Solana Beach, and Thomas Bunn at Lagerlof,
Senecal, Gosney & Kruse in Pasadena.
This case tests the applicability of Prop. 26 to taxes and fees
that were adopted prior to Prop. 26’s passage. CSAC’s
brief, drafted by Ben Fey at Jarvis, Fay & Gibson in Oakland,
argues against a retroactive application of Prop. 26 to municipal
electric rates that were approved by the electorate prior to
Prop. 26.
In this brief, CSAC is urging the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
to interpret the Communications Decency Act in such a way that
shared economy online platforms, like Airbnb, cannot use the
statute to shield themselves from liability for facilitating and
profiting from unlawful conduct. CSAC’s brief was written
by Christi Hogin at Best Best & Krieger in Manhattan Beach.
This case raises two important questions for law enforcement
responding to calls that involve a person exhibiting signs of
mental illness: (1) Whether a different Fourth Amendment analysis
is required; and (2) Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act
applies, and if so, how? CSAC’s brief, drafted by Lee
Roistacher at Daley & Heft in Solana Beach, urges to full Ninth
Circuit to review these issues and provide much needed guidance
to public agencies, law enforcement and the public.
CSAC has filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals arguing in favor of local regulatory authority over
short-term rentals, including provisions that require collection
of occupancy taxes and prohibitions on online platforms from
offering unlicensed rentals. CSAC’s brief was drafted by
Christi Hogin and Best Best & Krieger in Manhattan Beach.
A panel of the Ninth Circuit held that the “objective
indifference” standard applies to inadequate medical care claims
brought by pre-trial detainees. CSAC has filed a brief in
support of Orange County’s petition for rehearing en banc,
arguing that the panel failed to apply binding precedent, and
that the holding essentially converts a constitutional claim into
a standard claim for malpractice. CSAC’s brief was drafted
by Lee Roistacher at Daley & Heft in Solana Beach.
CSAC has filed an amicus brief urging the Court of Appeal to
continue to require the exhaustion of administrative remedies
prior to filing a lawsuit alleging a violation of Proposition
218. CSAC’s brief was drafted by Michael Colantuono and
Aleks Giragosian at Colantuono, Highsmith and Whatley in Grass
Valley, and Dan Hectschke at the Santa Barbara City Attorney’s
Office.
Government Code section 850.4 establishes absolute immunity from
liability for injuries resulting from the condition of fire
protection or firefighting equipment or facilities. In this
brief, CSAC argues that Section 850.4 immunity is jurisdictional,
and therefore cannot be waived even if it is not initially raised
as a defense. CSAC’s brief was prepared by Daniel Barer of
Pollak, Vida & Barer in Los Angeles.
CSAC is supporting Amador County’s effort at United States
Supreme Court review of a Ninth Circuit decision upholding the
Department of Interior’s decision to bring land into trust for
the Ione Band of Miwok Indians. The amicus brief argues
that the standard used by the Department of Interior is not
authorized by the Indian Reorganization Act, and is counter to
the Supreme Court’s Carcieri v. Salazar decision.
The brief was drafted by CSAC’s Litigation Counsel Jennifer
Henning.
This case addresses fire assessment fees and Proposition
218. CSAC’s amicus brief argues that Proposition 218 does
not preclude agency-wide assessments, and was drafted by Kevin
Siegel at Burke, Williams, and Sorensen in Oakland.
This case addresses the circumstances under which a joint
employer arrangement can obligate public employers to comply with
rules and regulations that are not otherwise applicable to public
agencies. CSAC’s amicus brief was drafted by David Tyra at
Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard in Sacramento.
CSAC is supporting Sonoma County petition for United States
Supreme Court review in a case addressing application of
qualified immunity. CSAC’s brief was drafted by CSAC’s
Litigation Counsel Jennifer Henning, Santa Cruz Deputy County
Counsel David Nefouse, and IMLA Associate Counsel Amanda Keller.
CSAC’s amicus brief in this case sets out the manner in which
cable provider franchise fees are collected, and the
interrelationship between the collection of franchise fees and
public, educational and governmental (PEG) programming
fees. The brief was drafted by Jeffrey Melching of Rutan &
Tucker in Costa Mesa.
This case addresses the scope of closed sessions permitted under
the Brown Act for emergencies. CSAC’s amicus brief was
drafted by Kendra Carney at Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart in Costa
Mesa, and Nubia Goldstein at Churchwell White in Sacramento.
This case raises the important question of whether non-Indians
with a lease interest in Indian land must pay possessory interest
tax. Consistent with state statute and long-standing federal
case law, Riverside County has been collecting such possessory
interest tax, and CSAC’s amicus brief supports that
practice. The brief was drafted by CSAC’s Associate Counsel
Laura Hirahara.
CSAC is supporting El Dorado County in this CEQA appeal
addressing the deference afforded to the Board of Supervisors in
general plan consistency determinations. CSAC’s brief was
prepared by Tyson Sohagi and the Sohagi Law Group in Los Angeles.
A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed
liability under the Clean Water Act under the so-called “conduit
theory”—that unconfined groundwater can act as a point source if
it conveys pollutants from a point source into waters of the
United States. CSAC is supporting the County of Maui’s
effort at obtaining rehearing en banc. The brief was drafted
by Shawn Haggerty at Best Best & Krieger in San Diego.
CSAC is urging the California Supreme to find that Prop. 218’s
protest procedures provide an administrative remedy that must be
exhausted prior to filing a class action lawsuit challenging the
methodology of calculating fees under Prop. 218’s substantive
requirements. The brief was drafted by Michael Colantuono
at Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley in Grass Valley.
This case addresses the issue of whether the juvenile court can
order a county to use county general funds to pay for foster care
services in the home of an unlicensed foster parent. CSAC’s
amicus brief argues that such an order violates both state law
and the separation of powers. The brief was drafted by
Emily Harlan in the San Diego County Counsel’s Office.
