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.
In this complicated tax matter, CSAC’s amicus brief was filed to
help educate the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals about how
statutory liens are enforced in bankruptcy matters. The
brief was drafted by Walter de Lorrell in the San Diego County
Counsel’s Office.
The Supreme Court has taken up the issue of how to apply the
“good cause” standard under Penal Code section 1305.4 for
extension of the period to exonerate bail. CSAC’s brief
arguing that good cause requires a demonstration of a reasonable
likelihood of success of returning a fugitive was prepared by its
Associate Counsel Janis Herbstman.
Can conditional employees who have not completed the conditions
of employment be entitled to the benefits of permanent public
employment? This case tests the limits of this
question. CSAC’s brief on the issue was drafted by Tim
Coates of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland in Los Angeles.
Public Utilities Code section 7901 gives telecom providers the
ability place their equipment in the public right-of-way so long
as the equipment does not “incommode the public use of the
road.” The question is this case is whether aesthetic
considerations, such as poles blocking unique views of the San
Francisco Bay, can be part of determining whether equipment
“incommodes the public use of the road.” CSAC’s brief in
support of San Francisco was prepared by Jeff Melching at Rutan &
Tucker in Costa Mesa.
The trial court in this case concluded that even though the claim
submitted to the county misrepresented the date that plaintiff
became aware of her claim, once the county discovered the true
date of discovery, it was too late to argue the claim was
untimely because the county had not made that argument when the
original inaccurate claim was filed. CSAC’s amicus brief in
support of Shasta County on appeal was drafted by Monterey City
Attorney Christine Davi.
In one of several Public Records Act cases pending in the
California Supreme Court, the Court will consider whether a
public agency must make public its outside counsel billing
records for pending litigation in response to a Public Records
Act request. CSAC’s brief in support of Los Angeles County
was drafted by its Litigation Counsel Jennifer Henning.
In the California Children Services Program (CCS), who has the
obligation to provide services to the minor that are not deemed
“medically necessary?” CSAC’s brief on this issue was
drafted by Jenny Lam in the Santa Clara County Counsel’s Office.
The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) determined that when
a public employer has a legitimate reason to object to an
employee representative in disciplinary interviews (in this case,
a practice of having Deputy District Attorneys representing
Deputy Public Defenders in hearings creating conflicts in
attorney obligations), the alternative is not using a different
representative. Rather, the employer’s option is not to
conduct the interview. In this appeal of that
determination, CSAC’s amicus brief was drafted by its Associate
Counsel Janis Herbstman.
These three separate cases are seeking court orders directing the
counties to reduce the fees charged by the county clerk
recorder’s office for official record copy documents.
CSAC’s brief in support of the counties was drafted by Rebecca
Archer in the San Mateo County Counsel’s Office.
This case raises the question of what statute of limitations
applies to a challenge to a federal decision to terminate and not
restore tribal lands. CSAC’s amicus brief was prepared by
Alegría De La Cruz in the Sonoma County Counsel’s Office.
This case challenges the city’s off-site sign ban under
California Constitution’s liberty of speech clause, which
plaintiff argues affords greater speech protection than the First
Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. CSAC’s brief in support
of the City of Los Angeles was prepared by Deborah Fox and Meg
Rosequist of Meyers Nave in Los Angeles.
This case tackles the question of whether and to what extent the
State can condition funding on a public agency’s willingness to
adopt programs or deliver services that the agency is not
required to do. The issue arises in this case in the
context of a charter city agreeing to use prevailing wage, but
so-called “unconstitutional conditions” can arise in a number of
situations that impact counties as well. CSAC amicus brief
on the issue was drafted by its Litigation Counsel, Jennifer
Henning.
When a public agency hires an investigator, who is also a lawyer,
to conduct an employment investigation, is the investigatory
report subject to the attorney-client privilege? CSAC’s
brief arguing that the privilege applies in such circumstances
was drafted by Ivan Delventhal and Nikki Hall at Renne Sloan in
San Francisco.
CSAC has requested publication of a Court of Appeal opinion that
discusses for the first time the Supreme Court’s recent
pronouncement on how to apply the exceptions to CEQA categorical
exemptions. CSAC letter was drafted by Elise O’Dea, a CROWN
Fellow in the Sonoma County Counsel’s Office.
Plaintiff has filed numerous claims and lawsuits around the State
challenging the fees charged by county clerk recorder’s offices
for official record copy documents. Yolo, Stanislaus and
Sacramento Counties recently prevailed in the trial courts in
such lawsuits, and appeals in each case are pending. CSAC
has filed a brief in the Yolo County case, and will also file in
support of Stanislaus (F070601) and Sacramento (C079239)
Counties. CSAC’s brief was drafted by Rebecca Archer,
Deputy County Counsel, San Mateo County.
The County of Tulare is challenge a PERB decision that concludes
that a public employer can impliedly waive its ability to impose
a last, best and final offer. CSAC’s brief in support,
which also asserts that the PERB unnecessarily opined on vested
rights issues in its opinion, was prepared by Corrie Manning,
Deputy General Counsel, League of California Cities.
This case involves the rule that when a taxpayer requests a
property tax reduction, he must ordinarily first make the request
of the county board of equalization or assessment appeals board
(AAB) before going to court. Before the California Supreme
Court is the question of whether a taxpayer alleging
non-ownership of property must similarly exhaust administrative
remedies. CSAC’s brief was prepared by Albert Raymseyer,
Senior Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles County.
CSAC has filed a brief in the California Supreme Court discussing
the issue of how the Public Records Act interacts with the
attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. In
the case, the Court will consider whether an inadvertent
disclosure in response to a Public Records Act of privileged
documents waives the privilege. CSAC’s brief explains such
disclosure does not waive the privilege, and explains how the two
statutory schemes could and should be read together. The
brief was prepared by Paul Zarefsky, Deputy City Attorney, City
and County of San Francisco.
CSAC is urging the California Supreme Court to review this case,
which will consider how medical bills for uninsured individuals
are treated when trying to calculate reasonable medical expenses
in injury cases. Prior case law has found that for insured
individuals it is the market rate of the medical care, rather
than the medical bills themselves, that are used to calculate
medical expenses. CSAC’s letter supporting review was
drafted by David Newdorf of Newdorf Legal in San Francisco.
In this appeal, the court will consider, among other things, what
deference is afforded to the decision of which local agency
serves as the lead agency for CEQA review purposes. CSAC’s
amicus brief was prepared by Sabrina Teller at Remy Moose Manley
in Sacramento.
