Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) entered into a contract with the City of Holtville (City) to detain noncitizens at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility (Facility). The City did not own the Facility, so the City subcontracted its detention responsibilities to the Facility’s owner. The owner did not operate the facility, so the owner subcontracted its responsibilities (with ICE’s approval) to a private operator, real party in interest Management & Training Corporation (Operator). Petitioner Anna Von Herrmann served the Operator with a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request regarding the Facility. Operator refused to comply, reasoning it was not subject to the CPRA because it did not have a contract directly with the City, and, thus, the Facility was not one that “detains a noncitizen pursuant to a contract with a city.” Alternatively, Operator contended several CPRA exemptions applied. Petitioner sought a writ of mandate from the trial court compelling Operator to comply with the CPRA request, but the court agreed with Operator’s interpretation of California Civil Code section 1670.9(c) and denied the petition without reaching Operator’s CPRA exemption claims. The Court of Appeal agreed the trial court construed section 1670.9(c) too narrowly as applying the CPRA only to an entity that contracts directly with a city to detain noncitizens. "[T]he structure of section 1670.9 as a whole, indicate the Legislature intended for the CPRA to apply to immigration detention facilities on a facility-wide basis rather than an entity-specific basis." The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying the petition and to enter a new order granting it, subject to resolution of Operator’s CPRA exemption claims. View "Von Herrmann v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The question this case presented for the Court of Appeal was whether a watermaster appointed by the trial court to implement and administer a water rights decree had the right to appeal the trial court’s orders interpreting the decree on the grounds the watermaster disagrees with the trial court’s interpretation and the orders would increase the watermaster’s administrative burdens and costs. The Court of Appeal concluded the watermaster did not have the right to appeal because the watermaster was not aggrieved by the trial court’s interpretation of the water users’ rights under the decree. View "Dow v. Lassen Irrigation Company" on Justia Law

Appellant Save the El Dorado Canal sought reversal of a judgment entered after the trial court denied its petition for writ of mandate. The petition challenged certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) and approval of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The challenged project, the Upper Main Ditch piping project, was approved by the El Dorado Irrigation District and the El Dorado Irrigation District Board of Directors (collectively, respondents). On appeal, appellant contended respondents’ approval of the challenged project violated CEQA because: (1) the EIR failed to provide an adequate project description because it omitted “a crucial fact about the ditch the District proposes to ‘abandon,’ ” i.e., “the Main Ditch system is the only drainage system” for the watershed; and (2) the EIR failed to adequately analyze the impacts of abandonment to hydrology, biological resources, and risks associated with wildfires. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding respondents did not abuse their discretion in approving the Blair Road alternative. The draft and final EIR’s adequately apprised respondents and the public about both the nature of the watershed and the fact that the District would no longer maintain the abandoned portion of the Upper Main Ditch. These environmental documents also adequately analyzed the Blair Road alternative’s impacts to hydrology, biological resources, and risks associated with wildfires. View "Save the El Dorado Canal v. El Dorado Irrigation Dist." on Justia Law

Two appeals consolidated for review centered on Placer County’s approval of a land use specific plan and rezoning to permit residential and commercial development and preserve forest land near Truckee and Lake Tahoe. The plaintiffs-appellants contended the County’s environmental review of the project did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act on numerous grounds, and the rezoning did not comply with the California Timberland Productivity Act of 1982. The trial court rejected each of plaintiffs’ claims except one, involving analysis of the project's impact on Lake Tahoe's water quality and greenhouse case emission mitigation measures. The Court of Appeal affirmed both judgments in part, finding measure 12-2 did not comply with CEQA, and the EIR’s analysis of the project’s impact on evacuation plans was supported by substantial evidence. The Court found substantial evidence did not support the County’s finding that no additional feasible mitigation measures existed to mitigate the project’s traffic impacts on state route 267, and the EIR’s discussion of the project’s energy impacts did not comply with CEQA. View "League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area v. City of Placer" on Justia Law

Joseph alleged that Atwater terminated his employment as chief of police in violation of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA) Gov. Code 3304(c): no chief of police may be removed from office without being provided written notice of the reasons “and an opportunity for administrative appeal.” Joseph claims the hearing offered by Atwater was not mutually scheduled, was not before a mutually selected neutral hearing officer, did not require the city to bear the burden of proof as to just cause for his termination, and did not require Atwater to present witnesses and allow them to be cross-examined. The trial court denied Joseph’s petition, concluding he was an at-will employee. Joseph’s employment agreement stated he could be removed as police chief for any reason; if the removal was not for willful misconduct, he had the option of continuing his employment by returning to the position of police lieutenant.The court of appeal reversed. Joseph was an at-will employee only as police chief and had rights to employment as a lieutenant that could be terminated only for cause. Before Atwater could terminate his right to employment as a lieutenant, it was required by POBRA to provide him with the type of administrative appeal afforded public safety officers who are terminable only for cause, including a full evidentiary hearing before a neutral fact-finder. View "Joseph v. City of Atwater" on Justia Law

The California Personnel Board (Board) sustained a complaint brought by Vickie Mabry-Height, M.D., against the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) alleging discrimination based on age, race, and gender in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Board concluded that Dr. Mabry-Height established a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination based on certain conduct, and the Department failed to rebut the presumption of discrimination by offering evidence that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for this conduct. The Department petitioned the trial court for a writ of administrative mandamus seeking an order setting aside the Board’s decision. The petition was denied, and judgment was entered in favor of Dr. Mabry-Height. The Department appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court. View "Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. State Personnel Bd." on Justia Law

Appellants Raymond and Michelle Plata were property owners in the City of San Jose and customers of Muni Water. Muni Water’s annual budget was reflected each year in a document called a source and use of funds statement, which was part of the City’s annual operating budget. In 2013, the Platas filed with the City a claim pursuant to Government Code sections 910 and 910.2, accusing Muni Water of violating Proposition 218 ab initio by collecting money from customers and illegally transferring it to the City’s own general fund. The City rejected the claim, so in early 2014, the Platas brought a class action lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the City under Proposition 218, as well as recovery of the amounts overpaid. After a lengthy bench trial, the trial court issued a statement of decision finding: (1) the late fees charged by Muni Water were not a fee or charge covered by Proposition 218; (2) any claims accruing prior to November 4, 2012 were time-barred because of the statute of limitations provided under Government Code section 911.2, and there was no basis for applying any equitable tolling doctrine; (3) as for tiered water rates, the discussion of high rates in the Platas’ government claims adequate to gave notice to the City that its rate structure was being questioned; and (4) “[a] more significant complication” raised by the City in its class decertification motion. The tiered rate structure would impact different class members differently from month to month, thus making it potentially “impossible” to draw a “line between ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ based on monthly water consumption[.]” The court granted the City’s motion to decertify the class, and refused to grant the Platas any relief as to their tiered rate argument. The Platas appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed judgment only as to the trial court’s findings on the tiered rate structure. In all other respects, it was affirmed. View "Plata v. City of San Jose" on Justia Law

Bankers Hill 150 and Bankers Hill/Park West Community Association (collectively, the Association) appealed after a trial court denied their petition for writ of mandate challenging a decision by the City of San Diego (City) to approve a development application for the 6th & Olive Project (the Project), a 20-story mixed-use building with a total of 204 dwelling units in the Bankers Hill neighborhood near downtown San Diego. Generally, the Association believed the Project was inconsistent with the neighborhood because it is too dense, too tall, and too close to the street. The Association contends the City abused its discretion in approving the Project because it was inconsistent with development standards and policies set forth in the City’s General Plan and the Uptown Community Plan, which governed development in the Project’s neighborhood. The Court of Appeal found the Project qualified for the benefits of the Density Bonus Law, and the evidence did not support any of the limited exceptions to its application. Because the City was obligated to waive those standards if they conflicted with the Project’s design, the Association’s claim that the Project conflicted with certain development standards did not establish a basis for denying the Project. Regardless, the Court concluded the City did not abuse its discretion in finding the Project to be consistent with the City’s land use plans. View "Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant West Valley Water District (District) appealed the entry of a stipulated judgment in favor of plaintiff-respondent County of San Bernardino (County) ordering that the District conduct its elections on a statewide general election date starting in November 2022. The sole issue on appeal was whether the District was authorized pursuant to Elections Code section 140521 to designate the statewide primary election date starting in June 2022 for its elections, or whether the District was required to hold its election on a statewide general election date starting in November 2022. The Court of Appeal concluded the District had to hold its election on the statewide general election date starting in November 2022. View "County of San Bernardino v. West Valley Water Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Treasure Andrews sued the Metropolitan Transit System, San Diego Transit Corporation, and Janalee St. Clair (collectively, MTS) after she was injured on an MTS bus driven by St. Clair. MTS moved for summary judgment on the ground that Andrews’s complaint was barred by the statute of limitations because Andrews filed suit more than six months after MTS mailed a notice of rejection of Andrews’s claim for damages. Andrews opposed, arguing among other things that MTS’s notice of rejection was defective because it did not include the full warning required by statute, and the two-year statute of limitations therefore applied. The trial court found that Andrews’s complaint was untimely, granted the motion, and entered judgment against Andrews. On appeal, Andrews again contended the notice of rejection was defective. To this, the Court of Appeal agreed: the notice did not comply with the statute and was therefore insufficient to trigger the six-month statute of limitations in Government Code section 945.6 (a)(1). Instead, Andrews had two years from the accrual of her cause of action to file suit. Thus, the Court determined the trial court erred by finding that the six-month limitations period applied, and reversed judgment on that basis. View "Andrews v. Metropolitan Transit System" on Justia Law