Existence and Scope of the Common Interest Privilege Before and After Ceres
|
|
- Maud Watson
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Existence and Scope of the Common Interest Privilege Before and After Ceres Wednesday, May 7, 2014 General Session; 1:00 2:45 p.m. Sarah E. Owsowitz, Best Best & Krieger League of California Cities 2014 Spring Conference Renaissance Esmeralda, Indian Wells
2 Notes: League of California Cities 2014 Spring Conference Renaissance Esmeralda, Indian Wells
3 California League of Cities : 2014 City Attorney Department Meeting Existence and Scope of the Common Interest Privilege Before and After Ceres Sarah E. Owsowitz Of Counsel, Best Best & Krieger LLP I. INTRODUCTION There has been a lot of discussion in municipal circles about the impact of Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (City of Ceres) (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889 on the nature of communications between a private project applicant and a city during that city s environmental review of the application in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 1. The Ceres decision held, without exception, that preapproval communications between a city attorney and an applicant s attorney can never be subject to common interest privilege and thus withheld from inclusion in a CEQA administrative record. But, while the Ceres decision may lend support to some cities current practices or persuade others to changes their policies regarding city/applicant communications, the decision did not settle the law regarding the use of the common interest privilege by cities and private project applicants to protect communications relating to CEQA review prior to project approvals. Indeed, it often seems as though there are as many variations in the relationship between a city and a private project applicant as there are cities in the State. While CEQA and the Government Code establish parameters regarding what information can be requested by a city when conducting environmental review, what can be disclosed by a city, or even what can be withheld by a city, case law and common practice drive a great deal of the decisions that go into city policies as to how to prepare, consider, retain and process information during the environmental review process. The following overview of how information flows between cities and applicants and how that information can and cannot be used in CEQA litigation provides just a snapshot of the ever-evolving structures governing communications between cities and applicants, concluding with a discussion of whether we stand in a post-ceres world. 1 Public Resources Code et seq.
4 II. CEQA REVIEW PROCESS A. What Information May A City Request From An Applicant? 1. Cities have broad authority to request information from Applicants, but there are limitations on what information they may disclose to the public. One reason why project applicants and cities should be particularly concerned about the privileged (or unprivileged) nature of certain communications during the CEQA process is because, when acting as a lead agency for a project, a lead agency may require that a project applicant submit virtually any information the city requests in order to facilitate preparation of the initial study. (CEQA Guidelines (e).) Public Resource Code section 21160, provides, in relevant part: Whenever any person applies to any public agency for a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use, the public agency may require that person to submit data and information which may be necessary to enable the public agency to determine whether the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment or to prepare an environmental impact report The Supreme Court, in Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1228, construed Public Resources Code section to provide public agencies with broad authority to demand information the agency believes is necessary to determine whether an impact is significant, even if that information is not required or generally authorized for collection by the agency s rules. Further, if trade secrets are necessary for an agency to conduct environmental review of a project, the applicant must submit such information to the agency. A trade secret generally includes: any formula, plan, pattern, process, tool, mechanism, compound, procedure, production data, or compilation of information which is not patented, which is known only to certain individuals within a commercial concern who are using it to fabricate, produce, or compound an article of trade or a service having commercial value and which gives its user an opportunity to obtain a business advantage over competitors who do not know or use it. 2 California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3
5 (Gov. Code (d).) However, an agency cannot include the trade secrets in the environmental document it circulates to the public, or otherwise disclose them. (Public Res. Code 21160; CEQA Guideline 15120(d).) B. How May A City Prepare A CEQA Document? The preparation of CEQA documents and supporting studies by outside consultants further muddies the water when considering what communications by applicants about the preparation of a project s environmental review document may or may not be privileged. Although Public Resource Code section 21082(a) requires a lead agency to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), subsection (b) authorizes a lead agency to include outside information in the EIR. In addition, the Guidelines and the cases interpreting these provisions permit preparation of an EIR by the applicant or the applicants consultant, provided that the document reflects the independent judgment of the agency. (Friends of La Vina v. County of Los Angeles (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1446, overturned on other grounds [ The [cases on EIR preparation] consistently confirm that the preparation requirements of CEQA ( , 21151) and the Guidelines turn not on some artificial litmus test of who wrote the words, but rather upon whether the agency sufficiently exercised independent judgment over the environmental analysis and exposition that constitute the EIR ].) In Eureka Citizens for Responsible Gov t v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, 369 the Court of Appeal again upheld the adequacy of an EIR, even though it was prepared by the project applicant. In that case, the applicant s attorney prepared the initial draft EIR, and that draft was peer-reviewed by city staff, as well as by an independent consultant retained by the city. The Court of Appeal observed that it is common for applicants to prepare EIRs, and held that the city council s finding that the city reviewed and critiqued the document and applied its independent review and judgment to the applicant s work product was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, cities may allow an applicant to hire outside experts to prepare environmental studies and to provide those studies to the City. (See, e.g., Schaeffer Land Trust v. San Jose City Council (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 612, 623; Perley v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 424, 429.) The City and County of San Francisco, for instance, has established
6 pools of qualified consultants with expertise in the preparation of environmental impact, transportation, historical resources, and archeological resources documents. It publishes a list of pre-qualified consultants that applicants may choose from and hire to prepare studies and environmental documents that are then submitted to the City for review. Applicants may also provide expert reports to a city to address concerns raised in comments on an environmental document. (See, e.g., Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949.) Because of the practice of allowing private applicants to prepare draft environmental documents, even assuming the absence of a common interest privilege between applicant and the city, it would seem that applicant communications with the consultant that are intended to shape the environmental review document and/or address questions of legal adequacy may not be considered to be within a city s possession and therefore may not be subject to disclosure under Ceres. C. When Do CEQA Documents Become Public Records? 1. Cities may determine that certain draft documents and notes are not public records. One area in which questions regarding the status of the common interest privilege regularly arise is when considering the disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Government Code 6250 et seq., (CPRA)) of applicant comments to cities on early drafts of CEQA documents. There is no case law addressing the question of whether the CPRA applies to internal or administrative drafts of CEQA documents. 3 Most documents qualify as public records, but the CPRA does exempt preliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intra-agency memoranda from disclosure if they will not be retained in the normal course of business and if the public interest in withholding the document outweighs the interest in disclosure. (Gov t Code 6254(a).) While, generally, this exemption should be narrowly construed, a city could decide to withhold early drafts of an environmental document (including any that a private applicant had submitted comments on) on the basis that 1) confusion would result from the release of multiple versions of the same documents and 2) the document will be subject to statutorily required public review once the city determines, in its expert opinion, that the 3 CEQA only briefly addresses the topic when the Guidelines require that agencies retain comments on EIRs and negative declarations as public records. (CEQA Guidelines )
7 environmental document is ready for circulation. Additionally, while CEQA does not specify whether preliminary or administrative drafts of CEQA documents are public records, some cities have relied on Public Resource Code section (e)(10), which requires drafts of EIRs and other environmental documents that are circulated to the public to be included as part of the administrative record of an agency s decision if litigation is filed, in order to withhold uncirculated documents from disclosure under the CPRA. They have taken the position that draft environmental documents that have not been circulated to the public are not public records subject to disclosure under the CPRA. 2. Certain archeological Native American sites information is never public record. Two provisions of the CPRA specifically apply to the CEQA process. First, archeological records and records of Native American historic, cultural, and sacred sites that are listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources are protected from disclosure under the CPRA. (Public Res. Code , [Native American site records]; Gov t Code 6254(r), [archeological records].) Further, the CEQA Guidelines provide that information about the location of such sites should not be disclosed in an EIR. (CEQA Guidelines 15120(d).) Thus, even if a city determines that it is necessary to collect this information (from the applicant or from other sources) to prepare an adequate environmental review document, such information cannot be disclosed under the CPRA. Also, it is appropriate for an EIR to include a more generalized description of archeological resources and Native American sites that may be affected by a project, such as a description of the types of resources, rather than their particular location. (See e.g. Clover Valley Found. v. City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 219.) 3. Computer mapping systems are not public records. Computer mapping systems, which are often used in compiling information for use in environmental documents, are not public records subject to disclosure under the CPRA. (Gov t Code (a)-(b).) In Sierra Club v. Superior Court (County of Orange) (2013) 57 Cal.App.4th 157, however, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the geographic information system (GIS) database maintained by Orange County constituted a public record
8 subject to disclosure to the Sierra Club. The Court found nothing in the text, statutory context, or legislative history of the term computer mapping system that allows [the Court] to say that the Legislature clearly sought to exclude GIS-formatted parcel data from the definition of public record when it can be disclosed without any accompanying software. (Id. at p. 176.) This holding suggests that where data cannot be disclosed without accompanying software, as may be the case with certain scientific studies employed to prepare environmental review documents, such software and data would not be subject to disclosure, whether prepared by the city or prepared by the applicant and given to the city. III. CEQA LITIGATION Under Public Resources Code section (e), the record of proceedings in a CEQA lawsuit must include, but is not limited to, the following: All project application materials; All staff reports and related documents relating to action on the project, CEQA review, CEQA findings, or overriding considerations adopted by the agency; Any transcripts or minutes of meetings in which the decision-making body considered the project or the CEQA review; Any transcripts or minutes of proceedings before advisory bodies, if those transcripts or minutes were presented to the decision-making body; All notices issued by the agency related to CEQA compliance and project approval; All written comments on the CEQA documents, including responses to the notice of preparation; All written evidence or correspondence submitted to or transferred from the agency with respect to the project s CEQA compliance; Any proposed decisions or findings submitted to the decision-making body by its staff or by others; The documentation of the final decision, including the EIR, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration, as well as all documents relied on in the agency s CEQA findings or statement of overriding considerations Any other written materials relevant to compliance with CEQA or the agency s
9 decision on the merits, including (1) the initial study, (2) any draft CEQA documents released for public review, (3) any studies or other documents relied on in environmental documents for the project that were made publicly available or that are included in an agency s files on the project, and (4) all internal staff communications relating to the project or its compliance with CEQA; and The full written record before any inferior decision-making body whose decision was appealed to a superior administrative decision-making body. This is not an exhaustive list, and agencies may add more to the record than required by CEQA. A. Whose Documents Comprise The CEQA Record? 1. City Documents As discussed above, administrative drafts of EIRs, EIR working papers, draft staff reports, and similar preliminary documents that preceded the documents circulated for public review or submitted to the decision-making body are not treated as part of the record of the agency s proceedings. (Public Res. Code (e)(10).) However, as also noted above, reports and studies prepared for a project and relied on in an environmental document for a project are part of the record if they were made available to the public during the public review period, or are included in the agency s files on the project. Further, internal staff communications relevant to the agency s compliance with CEQA or its decision on the merits of a project are also part of the record under Public Resources Code section (e)(10). If audio recordings of meetings by the decision-making body are available, the recordings must be included in the record if no written transcript of the proceedings has been prepared. (Consolidated Irrig. Dist. v. Superior Court (2012) 205 Cal.App. 4th 697, 717.) Finally, when prior CEQA documents have been prepared by an agency for the same project that is evaluated in a later EIR, those earlier CEQA documents should be included in the record. (County of Orange v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App. 4th 1, 9.) Similarly, when a project is approved but does not go forward, and substantially the same project is reapproved, the administrative record of the first approval should be included in the record for the second approval. (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322.)
10 2. Consultant And Sub-Consultant Documents In Consolidated Irrigation District v. Superior Court (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 697, the Court of Appeal clarified that information must be in the actual or constructive possession of an agency for it to be in the public agency s files and thereby to qualify for inclusion in the record under Public Resources Code section (e)(10). In Consolidated Irrigation District a petitioner sought copies of files from a city that were prepared by subconsultants to the city s primary environmental contractor on a project. The petitioner argued that subcontractor files should be included as part of the contractor s files, which the contract between the city and its primary contractor stated the city owned. The Court of Appeal found that possession could be either actual or constructive, noting that a finding of constructive possession would require that the city had the direct or indirect right to control the records. While the Court found that the contract between the city and its primary contractor explicitly gave the city control over the contractor s work product, it did not reference subconsultant s work product. Therefore, it held that the city did not have constructive possession of those files and, as such, they were not disclosable through the CPRA, nor were they part of the record Public Resources Code section (e)(10) s provisions stating that copies of studies or other documents relied upon in any [EIR] prepared for the project and either made available to the public during the public review period or included in the... public agency s files on the project... Similar to its analysis under the CPRA, the Court interpreted the CEQA provides regarding in the public agency s files to mean in the possession of the public agency. The Court found, again, because the city did not have constructive possession of the subconsultant s files, the records were not in the agency s files and, therefore, not part of the record. This suggests that, when a lead agency allows an applicant to hire outside consultants to prepare some or all of an environmental document, then it will be terms of the applicant s agreement with the city regarding the consultant s work that will dictate whether comments sent to the consultant by the applicant concerning the document would be excluded from the record and not disclosable under the CPRA. 3. Documents Submitted By The Public Certainly, all documents submitted by the public as to a project undergoing
11 environmental review are part of the administrative record for that project. However, with regard to whether documents that are only referenced in comment letters (whether from the applicant or other members of the public) constitute written evidence that has been submitted to a public agency, the Court in Consolidated Irrigation District v. Superior Court, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at 703 held that submitted to means making information readily available to the agency, thus, it is sufficient for a submitting party to reference documents previously provided to the agency for another project, or to reference a document with a specific web page address. Also note that in Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515, the Court of Appeal found that petitioner failed to exhaust its administrative remedies on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and their relation to climate change under Public Resources Code section when it submitted thousands of pages of unorganized data on a DVD to the city right before the project approval hearing. If the submission of unorganized data on a DVD does not constitute exhaustion of administrative remedies, this seems to suggest that such a DVD would also not properly be included in the administrative record for a CEQA lawsuit (or, perhaps, at least, that the contents of the DVD would not need to be printed out for inclusion in the record.) Finally, because the record is limited to evidence that was before the city and does not include other evidence outside that record (Porterville Citizens for Responsible Hillside Dev. v. City of Porterville (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 885, 890) documents submitted by the public (which includes the applicant) after the approval of the project are not part of the record. 4. Documents Submitted By The Applicant In California Oak Foundation v. County of Tehama (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1217, the lead case concerning common interest privilege prior to Ceres, the Court of Appeal held that counsel for a lead agency could share documents with an applicant s counsel without waiving the attorney-client privilege and work product protection under the general rule that there is no waiver of a privilege when privileged documents are shared with a third party whose involvement is reasonably necessary to further the purpose of an attorney s work for a client. The California Oak Foundation Court evaluated attorney privilege issues with respect to the contents of the administrative record under Public Resources Code section and held that
12 such documents were not required to be included in the record. Specifically, it stated that disclosing advice to a codefendant in the subsequent joint endeavor to defend the EIR in litigation can reasonably be said to constitute involvement of third persons to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary to further the purpose of the [original] legal consultation. (California Oak Foundation, supra at 174 Cal.App.4th at pp ) California Oak Foundation also held that the legislature s enactment of section did not, by implication, abrogate the attorney-client privilege. In summer of 2013, the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued its decision in Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court of Stanislaus County (City of Ceres) (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889. The case concerned a CEQA lawsuit challenging approvals by the City of Ceres for a Walmart store. The challenger, Citizens for Ceres, argued that the City and the developer should not be able to assert attorney-client privilege or the attorney-work product doctrine to exclude from the administrative record documents reflecting communications between the developer and the City. The Ceres Court held that the common-interest doctrine... does not protect otherwise privileged communications disclosed by the developer to the city or by the city to the developer prior to approval of the project. (Id. at 898) It opined [i]t is important to be clear at the outset that the common interest, if there is any, is in the creation of a legally defensible environmental document that supports the applicant's proposal. There is no point in asking, as the city and developer in this case would have it, whether the applicant and agency have a common interest simply in the development of a legally defensible environmental document. This is because the developer has no interest in the development of an environmental document that does not support the developer's proposal. (Id. at 917.) Thus the Court reasoned that when environmental review is in progress, the interests of the lead agency and a project applicant are fundamentally divergent. (Id at 898.) As such, it held that the applicant and agency cannot be considered to be advancing any shared interest when they share legal advice at the preapproval stage. (Id.) The Ceres Court discussed California Oak Foundation, stating that [t]he city and the developer argue that the [California Oak Foundation] court s remarks imply that it intended to refer to all privileged communications between the agency and applicant, not just those taking place after project approval. They say the statement that the agency s purposes include producing a legally sufficient EIR mean the court must have been addressing communications
13 relating to the production of a legally compliant EIR, not just defending an already approved EIR. If so, we disagree for the reasons [] and decline to follow. (California Oak at 921.) To date there has only been one decision discussing the Ceres ruling, Seahaus La Jolla Owners Association, v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 754. The case does not concern CEQA, nor does it rely on the holding in Ceres, only citing to the decision s general statement of the common interest doctrine. However, in a footnote, the Seahaus La Jolla Court notes that questions that have been raised regarding the legal reasoning in Ceres, stating, that the court s application of [the common interest doctrine] has been criticized by commentators. (Seahaus La Jolla at 771, fn 6.) The criticism referred to by the Seahaus La Jolla Court is found in Miller & Starr s treatise, California Real Estate and concerns the Ceres Court s assertion that a developer can never has an interest in the development of a legally defensible environmental document, only in one the supports the project under review. (9 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate ( supp.) 25A:6, pp ) Miller & Starr comments: [w]hether the Fifth District's across-the-board view of project developers' motives and novel view of EIRs as advocacy rather than informational documents will be subjected to and survive further legal scrutiny remains to be seen. (Id.) Given these two decisions, there is now, arguably, a split in authority between Ceres and California Oak Foundation. Unfortunately, unlike the federal court system, where intermediate appellate court decisions are binding only on the trial courts embraced within the circuit issuing the opinion, there is no such geographical boundary to decisions of the California Court of Appeal. Thus, for example, a judge in the Riverside County Superior Court (within the Fourth District Court of Appeal) is required to follow published precedent from any of the other five districts of the Court of Appeal, under the theory that there is only one California Court of Appeal, albeit administratively divided into Districts. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [ where there is more than one appellate court decision, and such appellate decisions are in conflict, the superior court can and must make a choice between the conflicting decisions ].) However, other courts have observed that, in reality, a superior court ordinarily will follow an appellate opinion emanating from its own district even though it is not bound to do so. (McCallum v. McCallum (1987) 190 Cal. App. 3d 308, 315.)
14 Going forward, a court reviewing city s decision to withhold, under the common interest doctrine, a communication between the agency and developer s attorneys that was made prior to the agency s approval of a project will likely require disclosure of that communication if it follows Ceres, rather than California Oak Foundation. A court could also order disclosure of such communications outside the context of the administrative record prepared for CEQA litigation, such as pursuant to CPRA request or discovery. Examples of types of communication that a court could order a public agency to disclose include s between a public agency and a developer discussing how to respond to comments on an EIR and disagreements between the agency and the developer as to what CEQA requires. It could also include administrative draft EIRs containing comments from the developer. As a conservative practice cities should assume that any recorded communications between the city s attorney and the developer s attorney prior to the issuance of a project approval are public. A city can decide to continue to rely on the California Oak Foundation decision and assert the common interest doctrine to protect such communications but, if that decision is challenged, a court could require the disclosure of these communications under Ceres. As an alternative to written communications with the developer during the approval process, public agencies (and their attorneys) might wish to consider in-person meetings or telephone calls when communicating issues of high-sensitivity to a developer (and the developer s attorney). Because common interest privilege is just that the decision of two parties to announce that they have a common interest to which they wish to extend their individual attorney-client privilege the Ceres decision will ultimately likely impact only a limited number of communications. The status of the law is unchanged for those cities that did not, in the past, agree with an applicant to assert to a common interest privilege with regard to pre-approval communications. The split of authority between Ceres and California Oak Foundation means that cities that have, in the past, agreed to assert a common interest privilege with regard to preapproval communications may well decide to continue to do so under California Oak Foundation especially if the applicant indemnifies the city for any legal costs association with defending that position. This leaves us with just those cities that were never fully comfortable with asserting the common interest privilege and are considering whether or not to announce a
15 specific policy with regard to pre-approval communication with applicants in light Ceres. For those cities discretion may be the better part of valor and they may begin to take the position that the common interest privilege does not attach to pre-approval communications.
16 This page left intentionally blank. League of California Cities 2014 Spring Conference Renaissance Esmeralda, Indian Wells
LAW OFFICES OF ALAN WALTNER
LAW OFFICES OF ALAN WALTNER 779 DOLORES STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94110 TEL (415) 641-4641 WALTNERLAW@GMAIL.COM Memorandum Date: To: Fort Ord Reuse Authority Board of Directors From: Alan Waltner,
More informationPresented by County Counsel, Deputies Ronnie Magsaysay and Mark Servino
Presented by County Counsel, Deputies Ronnie Magsaysay and Mark Servino 1 History of the PRA California Public Records Act (PRA) was enacted in 1968 The CPRA is codified under Gov. Code 6250-6276.48 In
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT CITIZENS FOR CERES, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY, Respondent; CITY OF CERES et al., Real Parties in Interest. F065690 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH
More informationPublic Records Act Requests and Pending Litigation
Public Records Act Requests and Pending Litigation Presented to October 4, 2012 John T. Kennedy, Partner Public Records Act Request While Lawsuit is Pending The fact that a lawsuit is pending does not
More informationDepartment 29 Superior Court of California County of Sacramento 720 Ninth Street Timothy M. Frawley, Judge Frank Temmerman, Clerk
Department 29 Superior Court of California County of Sacramento 720 Ninth Street Timothy M. Frawley, Judge Frank Temmerman, Clerk Hearing: Friday, December 2, 2011, 9:00 a.m. LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS
More informationFll~ED AUG J, i\llct-let:sow- II I I II Ill I II Ill Ill II I. Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code Section 6103
Fll~ED AUG 05 2013 CONNIE MAZZEI,, -r CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR cou_r. AAlL DEPUfY - -J, i\llct-let:sow- Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code Section 6103 16 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF
More informationCalifornia Public Records Act. Marco A. Gonzalez March 18, 2015
California Public Records Act Marco A. Gonzalez marco@coastlawgroup.com March 18, 2015 When information which properly belongs to the public is systematically withheld by those in power, the people soon
More informationMANHATTAN TOWERS 1230 ROSECRANS AVENUE, SUITE 110 MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA (310) FAX (310)
MICHAEL JENKINS CHRISTI HOGIN MARK D. HENSLEY BRADLEY E. WOHLENBERG KARL H. BERGER GREGG KOVACEVICH JOHN C. COTTI ELIZABETH M. CALCIANO LAUREN B. FELDMAN JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP A LAW PARTNERSHIP MANHATTAN
More informationIN THE SUPR E ME COUR T OF THE STAT E OF CALIFORNIA
No. S132972 IN THE SUPR E ME COUR T OF THE STAT E OF CALIFORNIA VINEYARD AREA CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE GROWTH, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Petitioners v. CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, Defendant and Respondent,
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE: JUDGE: March 10, 2017 HON. SHELLEYANNE W. L. CHANG DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 24 E. HIGGINBOTHAM DR. JOEL MOSKOWITZ, an individual, Petitioner and Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 10/23/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE SAVE LAFAYETTE TREES et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LAFAYETTE,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 5/6/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA et al.,
More informationMarch 16, Via TrueFiling
Whitman F. Manley wmanley@rmmenvirolaw.com Via TrueFiling Hon. Dennis M. Perluss, Presiding Justice Hon. John L. Segal, Associate Justice Hon. Kerry R. Bensinger, Associate Justice California Court of
More informationFrequently Requested Information and Records December 2014 Cumulative Supplement
Frequently Requested Information and Records December 2014 Cumulative Supplement This table is intended as a general guide on the applicable law and is not intended to provide legal advice. The facts and
More informationAPPEARANCES. See attached Statement of Intended Decision. DATE: 01/23/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 1 DEPT: C-73. Calendar No.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL MINUTE ORDER DATE: 01/23/2015 TIME: 12:00:00 PM DEPT: C-73 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Joel R. Wohlfeil CLERK: Juanita Cerda REPORTER/ERM: Not
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 11/16/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Petitioner, v. B239849 (Los Angeles County Super.
More informationTower Lane Properties v. City of Los Angeles
Cited As of: March 25, 2014 7:57 PM EDT Reporter: 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 196 Tower Lane Properties v. City of Los Angeles Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division One February 28,
More informationCitizen Advocacy Center Guide to Illinois Freedom of Information Act
In 1984, the Illinois General Assembly enacted the Illinois Freedom of Information Act ( the Act ). The Act states that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT CITIZENS FOR CERES, Petitioner, vs. SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STANSLAUS, Respondent, CITY OF CERES,
More informationCounty Counsel Memorandum
County Counsel Memorandum Date: May 25, 2006 To: From: Subject SBCAG Board Shane Stark, County Counsel Kevin Ready, Senior Deputy County Counsel Use of Public Funds in the Ballot Process This memorandum
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Petitioner. Respondent. Real Party in Interest.
Supreme Court Case No. S194708 4th App. Dist., Div. Three, Case No. G044138 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIERRA CLUB, Petitioner vs. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE: JUDGE: August 24,2016 HON. SHELLEYANNE W. L. CHANG DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 24 E. HIGGINBOTHAM TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, a California
More informationDear Chief Justice George and Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court:
California Supreme Court 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Re: County of Orange v. Barratt American, Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 420 Amicus Curiae Letter In Support of Review (Rule
More informationADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE ILLINOIS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS...
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE ILLINOIS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS... 1 SECTION 2. FOIA OFFICERS... 5 A. Designation of FOIA Officers... 5 B.
More informationCase3:15-cv Document1 Filed01/09/15 Page1 of 16
Case:-cv-00 Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 Matthew C. Helland, CA State Bar No. 0 helland@nka.com Daniel S. Brome, CA State Bar No. dbrome@nka.com NICHOLS KASTER, LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite San Francisco,
More informationDecember 17, (Third District Court of Appeal Case No. C066996)
REMY I MOOSE I MANLEY LLP Whitman F. Manley wma nley@rmmenvirolaw.com The Honorable William J. Murray The Honorable Vance W. Raye The Honorable Harry E. Hull California Court of A peal, Third Appellate
More informationThe Public Records Act Requests from a Risk Management Perspective
The Public Records Act Requests from a Risk Management Perspective Presented by: Neal Meyers, Esq. Meyers Fozi, LLP WEBINAR DECEMBER 6, 2016 10:00 AM TO 11:30 AM Presentation Outline California Public
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 11/7/06 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX A. J. WRIGHT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, 2d Civil No. B176929 (Super.
More informationFILED to the ALPR data sought in this case. APR
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION Protecting Rights and Promoting Freedom on the Electronic Frontier April 17, 2017 Honorable Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye and Honorable Associate Justices California
More informationREMY I MOOSE I MANLEY LLP. September 23, 2015
ORIGINAl REMY I MOOSE I MANLEY LLP Sabrina V. Teller steller@rrnmenvirolaw.com VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS The Honorable Judith L. Haller, Acting Presiding Justice The Honorable Cynthia Aaron, Associate Justice
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 3/23/17; mod. and pub. order 5/25/17 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE FRIENDS OF OUTLET CREEK, v. Plaintiff and Appellant,
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL MINUTE ORDER
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL MINUTE ORDER DATE: 04/19/2013 TIME: 03:36:00 PM JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Timothy Taylor CLERK: Patricia Ashworth REPORTER/ERM: Not Reported
More informationCase No. C IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
Case No. C080685 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT RICHARD STEVENSON and KATY GRIMES, Petitioners and Appellants, vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant and Respondent.
More informationSupersedes the following Resolutions & Policies:
REQUESTING PUBLIC RECORDS POLICY Policy No.: 200.001 Resolution No.: 163-92 Date procedures adopted by the Executive Director: 12/23/1992 Date Approved: 12/23/1992 Supersedes the following Resolutions
More informationBASICS OF SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS
THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES P. LOUGH 2445 Capitol Street Second Floor Fresno, California 93721 James P. Lough Telephone: (559) 495-1272 Dennis M. Gaab Attorney at Law Facsimile: (559) 495-1274 Legal Assistant
More informationLOCAL CLAIMS FILING REGULATIONS
City Attorneys Department League of California Cities Continuing Education Seminar February 2003 Kevin D. Siegel Anne Q. Pollack Attorneys LOCAL CLAIMS FILING REGULATIONS INTRODUCTION The Tort Claims Act
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
4th Court of Appeal No. G036362 Orange County Superior Court No. 04NF2856 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE LERCY WILLIAMS PETITIONER, v. SUPERIOR COURT
More informationFriends of the Willow Glen Trestle v. City of San Jose
Reporter 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 676 Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle v. City of San Jose Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District August 12, 2016, Opinion Filed H041563 FRIENDS OF THE WILLOW
More informationConflicts of Interest: Rules to Know
Conflicts of Interest: Rules to Know Thomas D. Long NOSSAMAN LLP 2014 Legal Affairs Seminar February 23 25, 2014 Palm Springs, California MAKING IT HAPPEN. Outline California Rules of Professional Conduct
More information2218 HOMEWOOD WAY, CARMICHAEL, CA PHONE (916) FAX (916)
2218 HOMEWOOD WAY, CARMICHAEL, CA 95608 PHONE (916) 487-7000 FAX (916) 487-7999 WWW.CALAWARE.ORG INFO@CALAWARE.ORG With over 25 years of experience in California, specializing in: The California Public
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO
0 HAMILTON CANDEE (SBN ) hcandee@altshulerberzon.com BARBARA J. CHISHOLM (SBN ) bchisholm@altshulerberzon.com ERIC P. BROWN (SBN ) ebrown@altshulerberzon.com ALTSHULER BERZON LLP Post Street, Suite 00
More informationCENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent.
Page 1 CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. B235039 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 03/20/2014 TIME: 10:25:00 AM JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Raymond Cadei CLERK: D. Ahee REPORTER/ERM: BAILIFF/COURT
More informationTO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of California BILL LOCKYER. Attorney General : OPINION : No.
Page 1 of 6 TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of California BILL LOCKYER Attorney General OPINION No. 04-809 of July 14, 2005 BILL LOCKYER Attorney General SUSAN
More informationLOCAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA Opinion No. SO 77 7 60 Op. Atty Gen. Cal. 335 September 30, 1977 SYLLABUS: [*1] LOCAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Ordinances
More informationSUPPLEMENT TO UPDATE ON LAND USE AND CEQA CASES
611 ANTON BOULEVARD, FOURTEENTH FLOOR COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626-1931 DIRECT ALL MAIL TO: POST OFFICE BOX 1950 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 TELEPHONE 714-641-5100 FACSIMILE 714-546-9035 INTERNET
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Bob H. Joyce, (SBN 0) Andrew Sheffield (SBN ) LAW OFFICES OF LEBEAU THELEN, LLP 001 East Commercenter Drive, Suite 00 Post Office Box 0 Bakersfield, California - (1) -; Fax (1) - Attorneys for DIAMOND
More informationFrequently Asked Questions for Municipalities LOCAL GOVERNMENT BODIES RECORDS
Frequently Asked Questions for Municipalities The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIP) Act aims to strike a balance between the public s right to know and the individual s right to privacy,
More informationOFFICE OF THE INFORMATION & PRIVACY COMMISSIONER for Prince Edward Island. Order No. FI Re: Department of Communities, Land and Environment
OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION & PRIVACY COMMISSIONER for Prince Edward Island Order No. FI-17-011 Re: Department of Communities, Land and Environment July 13, 2017 Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy
More informationSETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement ( Agreement ) is made and entered into as of February 27, 2014 by and between Plaintiff/Petitioner
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement ( Agreement ) is made and entered into as of February 27, 2014 by and between Plaintiff/Petitioner BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION BAY AREA and Defendants/Respondents
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Filed 12/4/17 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
More informationCEQA Reform and Litigation Reports on the Legislature and the Supreme Court
CEQA Reform and Litigation Reports on the Legislature and the Supreme Court Thursday, September 19, 2013; 1:00 2:30 p.m. Christian L. Marsh, Downey Brand League of California Cities 2013 Annual Conference;
More informationTRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY. As used in this Policy, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY BOARD POLICY #10-026 POLICY TITLE: Requests For Inspection of Public Records A. PURPOSE This Policy sets forth the District policies and procedures
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 8/12/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT FRIENDS OF THE WILLOW GLEN TRESTLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, H041563 (Santa Clara County
More informationFIRST DISTRICT APPELLATE PROJECT WENDE BRIEFS IN GUILTY PLEA APPEALS. (November 2002)
FIRST DISTRICT APPELLATE PROJECT WENDE BRIEFS IN GUILTY PLEA APPEALS (November 2002) Dear Panel Attorney: You have been appointed to a guilty plea appeal case. Although there are some possible issues to
More informationDoes a Civil Protective Order Protect a Company s Foreign Based Documents from Being Produced in a Related Criminal Investigation?
Does a Civil Protective Order Protect a Company s Foreign Based Documents from Being Produced in a Related Criminal Investigation? Contributed by Thomas P. O Brien and Daniel Prince, Paul Hastings LLP
More informationCourt of Appeal No. A COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR
Court of Appeal No. A116389 COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR MICHAEL CHRISTOPH KREUTZER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA
KATE M. NEISWENDER (State Bar No. 133234) LAW OFFICE OF K.M. NEISWENDER Post Office Box 24617 Ventura, California 93002 voice: 805/649-5575 fax: 805/649-8188 ALYSE M. LAZAR (State Bar No. 092796) LAW OFFICE
More informationAttorneys for Respondents 15 TURN DOWN THE LIGHTS, 16 CASE NO. M Petitioner, 18 v.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 M. CHRISTINE DAVI, SBN 178389 City Attorney CITY OF MONTEREY City Hall Monterey, California 93940 Telephone: (831) 646-3915 Facsimile: (831) 373-1634 Email: davi@ci.monterey.ca.
More informationChapter 801. LOCAL WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARDS. Section contains amendments regarding Requests for Formation of Boards.
Chapter 801. Local Workforce Development Boards Sections 801.1, 801.11-801.13, 801.16, 801.17 and Section 801.3 The following rule(s) will be effective November 2, 2000. Chapter 801. LOCAL WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
More informationOFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney LINDA M. ROSS General Counsel, Mayor's Office DIRECT DIAL: (415) 554-4724 E-MAIL: linda.ross@sfgov.org MEMORANDUM FROM: Linda M. Ross General Counsel, Mayor's Office Question
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO CITIZENS FOR SAN LUIS VALLEY - WATER PROTECTION COALITION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 08-cv- CITIZENS FOR SAN LUIS VALLEY - WATER PROTECTION COALITION Plaintiff, v. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, a federal
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
LAW OFFICES OF DONALD B. MOONEY DONALD B. MOONEY (CA Bar # 153721 129 C Street, Suite 2 Davis, California 95616 Telephone: (530 758-2377 Facsimile: (530 758-7169 dbmooney@dcn.org Attorneys for Petitioner
More informationOPEN MEETING LAWS IN CALIFORNIA: RALPH M. BROWN ACT
OPEN MEETING LAWS IN CALIFORNIA: RALPH M. BROWN ACT December 2011 401 Mendocino, Suite 100 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 707.545.8009 www.meyersnave.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE
More informationRequest for Publication
June 24, 2016 IVAN DELVENTHAL idelventhal@publiclawgroup.com 415.848.7218 The Honorable Presiding Justice and Associate Justices Court of Appeal First Appellate District, Division Three 350 McAllister
More informationWrit of Mandate Outline 1 Richard Rothschild Western Center on Law and Poverty , ext. 24;
Writ of Mandate Outline 1 Richard Rothschild Western Center on Law and Poverty 213-487-7211, ext. 24; rrothschild@wclp.org I. What is a petition for writ of mandate? A. Mandate (aka Mandamus, ) is an "extraordinary"
More informationCALIFORNIA S PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
CALIFORNIA S PUBLIC RECORDS ACT January 2017 Orange County Department of Education CALIFORNIA S PUBLIC RECORDS ACT Copyright 2017 by ORANGE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Printed
More informationLOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS COMMITTEE. OPINION NO. 523 June 15, 2009
LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS COMMITTEE OPINION NO. 523 June 15, 2009 CAN A LAWYER ETHICALLY AGREE WITH A CLIENT TO A CONTINGENCY FEE WHICH IS BASED ON A PERCENTAGE
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 6/6/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VON BECELAERE VENTURES, LLC, D072620 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES ZENOVIC, (Super.
More informationThe Role and Responsibilities of LAFCO in the CEQA Process
The Role and Responsibilities of LAFCO in the CEQA Process PRESENTED BY Mala Subramanian Best Best & Krieger 2016 Best Best & Krieger LLP History of CEQA California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ) Adopted
More informationATTORNEY-CLIENT MAY 25, 2011 JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ.
THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE MAY 25, 2011 MCLE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE PURPOSE FOR THE PRIVILEGE 3 II. WHAT IS PROTECTED 3 III. WAIVER OF THE PRIVILEGE 3 IV. WHEN A CORPORATION
More informationARTICLE 5.--ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT GENERAL PROVISIONS. K.S.A through shall be known and may be cited as the Kansas
ARTICLE.--ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT GENERAL PROVISIONS December, 00-0. Title. K.S.A. -0 through - - shall be known and may be cited as the Kansas administrative procedure act. History: L., ch., ; July,.
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 10/1/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT WESTSIDERS OPPOSED TO OVERDEVELOPMENT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D068185
Filed 10/14/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. D068185 (Super.
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 10/03/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE COUNTY OF ORANGE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY,
More informationThe Highway 68 Coalition v. County of Monterey. Opinion
The Highway 68 Coalition v. County of Monterey Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District July 31, 2017, Opinion Filed H042891 Reporter 14 Cal. App. 5th 883 *; 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 744 **;
More informationHave You Noticed? Noticing and Agenda Descriptions Under the Brown Act
Have You Noticed? Noticing and Agenda Descriptions Under the Brown Act Thursday, October 6, 2016 General Session; 2:45 4:00 p.m. Martin D. Koczanowicz, City Attorney, Grover Beach, King City and Tulare
More informationOPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND/OR PROHIBITION OR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF
In the Cttnurt nf J\ppeal of the bu nf C!taltfnmta SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE B255704 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF GILDA AND MURRAY LAPPE GILDA LAPPE, v. Petitioner, THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
More informationBerry Wilkinson Law Group
THE MEET AND CONFER OBLIGATIONS OF LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES By: Alison Berry Wilkinson The statutory scheme that covers labor relations between the police associations of local agencies and their employers
More information: SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Michael L. Pisauro, Jr. Frascella & Pisauro, LLC. 100 Canal Pointe Blvd. Suite 209 Princeton, NJ 08540 609-919-9500 609-919-9510 (Fax) Attorney for Plaintiff : SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----
Filed 2/28/13; pub. order 4/2/13 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ---- ALLIANCE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE AUBURN COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO. BUTTE FIRE CASES Case No.: JCCP 4853
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE/TIME: JUDGE: APRIL 26, 2018, 10:00 am HON. ALLEN SUMNER DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 42 M. GARCIA BUTTE FIRE CASES Case No.: JCCP 4853 Nature of Proceedings:
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D062951
Filed 3/12/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENTENTE DESIGN, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. D062951 (San Diego County Super. Ct. No.
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ROBERT CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ 2150 Peony Street Corona, CA 92882 (909) 319-0461 Defendant in Pro Per SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
More informationCHAPTER 5.14 PUBLIC RECORDS
CHAPTER 5.14 PUBLIC RECORDS SECTIONS: 5.14.010 Purpose 5.14.020 Public Records--Court Documents--Not Applicable 5.14.030 Definitions 5.14.040 County Formation and Organization 5.14.050 County Procedures--Laws--Benton
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 7/11/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT ASSOCIATION FOR LOS ANGELES DEPUTY SHERIFFS, Petitioner, B280676 (Los
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
Filed 6/26/18 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered
More informationPursuant to rule of the California Rules of Court, and to. Evidence Code sections 452 and 459, Petitioner Sierra Club
Pursuant to rule 8.252 of the California Rules of Court, and to Evidence Code sections 452 and 459, Petitioner Sierra Club respectfully requests this Court to take judicial notice of the following documents:
More informationCentex Homes v. Superior Court (City of San Diego)
MICHAEL M. POLLAK SCOTT J. VIDA GIRARD FISHER DANIEL P. BARER JUDY L. McKELVEY LAWRENCE J. SHER HAMED AMIRI GHAEMMAGHAMI JUDY A. BARNWELL ANNAL. BIRENBAUM VICTORIA L. GUNTHER POLLAK, VIDA & FISHER ATTORNEYS
More informationHooser v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 341, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 341 (Cal.App.
Hooser v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 341, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 341 (Cal.App. 11/13/2000) [1] California Court of Appeals [2] No. D035392 [3]
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 7/19/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT et al., v. Plaintiffs and Appellants,
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
0 0 Kelly A. Aviles (SBN NO FEE LAW OFFICES OF KELLY AVILES Gov. Code 0 0 Foothill Blvd., #0-0 La Verne, California 0 Telephone: (0-0 Facsimile: (0 - Email: kaviles@opengovlaw.com Dennis A. Winston, (SBN
More informationBody-Worn Cameras and Critical Incidents
Body-Worn Cameras and Critical Incidents Wednesday, September 13, 2017 General Session; 3:30 5:00 p.m. James E. "Jeb" Brown, Assistant County Counsel, Riverside County Counsel s Office Jennifer L. Petrusis,
More informationRights & Responsibilities: The Rights of Requesters and the Responsibilities of Southampton County under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
Rights & Responsibilities: The Rights of Requesters and the Responsibilities of Southampton County under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act The Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), located
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case Number S133687 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LINDA SHIRK, ) Court of Appeal ) Case No. D043697 Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) SDSC No. GIC 818294 vs. ) ) VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL ) DISTRICT,
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D052237
Filed 1/9/09; pub. & mod. order 1/30/09 (see end of opn.) COURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIVERWATCH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. D052237 (San Diego
More informationand E Records Retention Issues Under the Public Records Act. League of California Cities City Attorney Conference May 8, 2013
Email and E Records Retention Issues Under the Public Records Act League of California Cities City Attorney Conference May 8, 2013 Eric Danly, Principal, Meyers Nave Slide 1 SAN FRANCISCO SANTA ROSA FRESNO
More informationRE: SB 731 (Steinberg) Oppose Unless Amended (As Amended 5/24/13)
July 31, 2013 The Honorable Darrell Steinberg President pro Tempore, California State Senate State Capitol, Room 205 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: SB 731 (Steinberg) Oppose Unless Amended (As Amended 5/24/13)
More informationBRADY DISCOVERY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (INTERNAL POLICY) Revised April 22, 2010 INTRODUCTION
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF VENTURA BRADY DISCOVERY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (INTERNAL POLICY) Revised April 22, 2010 INTRODUCTION The following is an internal policy that addresses
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 8/11/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STANISLAUS COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF
More information