None

Richard Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles(2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1207

In Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles, the California Court of Appeal recently held that an employer may lawfully terminate an employee based on a good faith belief that the employee has filed a false sexual harassment complaint.

On January 24, 2012, the Court of Appeal ruled that a report of a personnel investigation was subject to public disclosure. In Marken, the Court ruled that, under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), public interest in disclosure of a report of a personnel investigation finding a teacher had violated his employer's sexual harassment policy outweighed the teacher's privacy interests. 

 AB 1344, which became effective on January 1, 2012, changes the law regarding employment and compensation for public agency managers.  It also requires public agencies to post meeting agendas on their websites and imposes new restrictions on changes to city charters.    Here is a summary of significant changes:  

Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles is the second in a series of challenges to CEQA review of a mixed-use residential development, the Playa Vista Phase Two Project.  In a prior case concerning the same Project, the Court issued a writ of mandate invalidating a 2004 EIR for failing to consider “in-place” preservation of archeological artifacts, and for presenting a misleading project description and an inadequate analysis of wastewater impacts.  The writ further instructed the City to vacate certification of the 2004 EIR and project approvals, and to revise the EIR to address the deficiencies pointed out by the court.  In response to the Court’s writ, the City in 2010 certified a Revised EIR for the Project and sought to discharge the writ.  Petitioners objected and filed a new petition for a writ of mandate.  The Court consolidated the new petition with the pending case. 

The most significant portion of the new ruling was only reached because, in addition to the revised analysis required by the writ, the City also included a new climate change impacts analysis in the Revised EIR.  Petitioners attacked the climate change analysis for inadequately analyzing the impacts of sea-level rise caused by climate change on the project.  Petitioners relied on CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2, which states that “[t]he EIR shall also analyze any significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people into the area affected” by environmental impacts or hazards.  The Court disagreed that the Revised EIR was required to analyze the impacts of climate change on the Project, holding that “the purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, not the significant effect of the environment on the project.”   The Court held that CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2 is only consistent with the CEQA statute to the extent it requires analysis of the project’s impacts on the environment, and not vice-versa.  The Court went on to criticize Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which is used to guide an agency’s initial study, for including questions that address the impacts of the environment on the project.

In Retired Employees Association of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (“REAOC”), the California Supreme Court addressed a question posed to it by the Ninth Circuit: “Whether, as a matter of California law, a California county and its employees can form an implied contract that confers vested rights to health benefits on retired county employees.”  REAOC, No. S184059, at *1 (Cal., filed Nov. 21, 2011). 

In REAOC, retired employees challenged the County’s 2007 decision to split active employees and retirees into separate pools for purposes of calculating health insurance premiums.  REAOC argued that the County’s decision constituted an impairment of contract, and that the long-standing practice of pooling had created an implied contractual right to a continuation of a single unified pool for retirees and actives. 

The California Supreme Court held “that a county may be bound by an implied contract under California law if there is no legislative prohibition against such arrangements, such as a statute or ordinance.”  REAOC, at *1.  The Court did not address the question of whether an implied vested right existed for Orange County retirees.  Accordingly, the case now returns to the Ninth Circuit for that determination.

For further analysis, click here.  To read the Court’s full decision in REAOC v. County of Orange, click here. 

On November 9, 2011, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, issued a ruling holding that state law does not preempt the City of Riverside's ("City") ordinance banning medical marijuana dispensaries ("MMD").  (City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient's Health and Wellness Center, Inc., et al. (2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1406).)

Having opened in the City in 2009, Inland Empire Patient's Health and Wellness Center, Inc. ("Inland Empire Center") was a non-profit mutual benefit corporation, established as a MMD.  The City's municipal code prohibited MMDs on two grounds.  First, the City's zoning ordinance specifically lists MMDs as a prohibited use, and secondly, the City's code proscribes any use that is prohibited by state and/or federal law.  The City's code also declares that any use that violates the City's code is considered a public nuisance.

After surviving a highly publicized ballot box challenge and lawsuit, the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") unanimously adopted a final greenhouse gas ("GHG") cap-and-trade program regulation.  The cap-and-trade program is considered to be the cornerstone of CARB's implementation of California's landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, Assembly Bill 32 ("AB 32").  The first of CARB's cap-and-trade program auctions for allowances for use in 2013 will be held August 15 and November 14, 2012. 

Major industrial sources and electric utilities must begin compliance with the cap-and-trade program in 2013.  By 2015, distributors of transportation fuel and natural gas also become obligated to comply with cap-and-trade program requirements.   In addition, the cap-and-trade program will likely create a market for CARB-certified offset projects in areas of livestock management, elimination of ozone depleting substances, urban forest projects, and U.S. Forest projects.

To view the full summary of the program, follow this link.

Three important reform bills designed to streamline California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) processing and review for certain classes of projects have been enacted and will take effect January 1, 2012.  SB 226 creates a new exemption for urban infill and renewable energy projects.  It also makes a variety of amendments to both CEQA and SB 375, the landmark 2008 legislation designed to integrate California's land use, transportation and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction policies.   AB 900 shortens the Court review for CEQA challenges to certified "leadership projects" by authorizing lawsuits to be brought directly in the Court of Appeal on an expedited schedule.  "Leadership projects" must be certified LEED silver or higher, be carbon neutral, create "high-wage, highly skilled" jobs, and result in an investment of at least $100 million in California's economy (among other requirements).  SB 292 is a narrow bill designed to accommodate a new sports stadium and convention center in downtown Los Angeles by  streamlining judicial review in exchange for reductions in GHG emissions and traffic impacts.

SB 226 is likely to have the broadest effects for public agencies and private developers by facilitating urban infill projects.  It will likely reduce the time and expense for CEQA review for infill projects.  SB 226 expands the definition of urban infill projects, strengthens CEQA's tiering provisions, and provides that impacts from greenhouse gas emissions will not defeat the urban infill exemption under certain conditions.

Click here for a more detailed analysis of these recent CEQA amendments.   

In a closely-watched and high-profile case involving a civil gang injunction against the violent Norteños gang, Meyers Nave attorneys Tricia Hynes and Britt Strottman, working with the Oakland City Attorney's Office, succeeded in obtaining a civil gang injunction against Norteños gang members. Civil gang injunctions are court orders prohibiting a particular criminal street gang from engaging in various activities that are harmful and injurious to the community, its residents and business owners. The Honorable Robert Freedman of the Alameda County Superior Court granted the City of Oakland's request for a preliminary civil gang injunction order in full, relying upon all of the evidence and testimony submitted by the City. What this means is that the individually named gang members in the first phase of the litigation are now prevented from engaging in a broad range of activities, some of which are already crimes in their own right, and some of which are not crimes, per se, but have the real propensity to lead to crimes. Within a designated "Safety Zone" covering the neighborhoods where the gang operates, the enjoined individuals will be prohibited from associating with one another, intimidating witnesses, recruiting youth into the gang, knowingly being in the presence of drugs or firearms, wearing gang colors or being on the streets between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. 

In Lopez v. Pacific Maritime Association, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals approved an employer's rule against hiring job applicants who have previously tested positive for drug and alcohol use.　 The court's initial ruling was released in March 2011, but on September 21, 2011, the court denied the job applicant's petitions for rehearing.

Public entities that utilize the UPCCAA should take note that the monetary thresholds for bidding on public projects has changed as follows:

(a) Public projects of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) or less may be performed by the employees of a public agency by force account, by negotiated contract, or by purchase order.

(b) Public projects of one hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($175,000) or less may be let to contract by informal procedures as set forth in this article.

(c) Public projects of more than one hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($175,000) shall, except as otherwise provided in this article, be let to contract by formal bidding procedure.

In Lopez v. Pacific Maritime Association, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals approved an employer’s rule against hiring job applicants who have previously tested positive for drug and alcohol use.  The court’s initial ruling was released in March 2011, but on September 21, 2011, the court denied the job applicant’s petitions for rehearing.

The employer has a policy whereby any applicant who tests positive for drug and alcohol use during the pre-employment screening process may not ever again apply for a position.  The applicant originally applied for a position with the employer in 1997 but was rejected after testing positive for marijuana despite having seven days notice of the pre-employment drug test.  Under the employer’s “one-strike rule,” the applicant was rejected again when he re-applied in 2004 after allegedly kicking his drug habit.

By Michael A. Sweet & Max Neiman

Local government bankruptcies are rare. Nevertheless, some public employee organizations aim to make the local government bankruptcy option nearly impossible, as evidenced by AB 506. This bill would require a tortuous process before a municipality could even file for federal bankruptcy protection. Other large, complex states, notably New York, Texas and Florida, do not hem in their local governments in anything like the way AB 506 threatens to do. 

SAN FRANCISCO - Speaking at a special joint meeting of the San Francisco Police Commission and the Human Rights Commission on Wednesday evening, Police Chief Gregory Suhr issued an order intended to clarify the partnership between the San Francisco Police Department and the federal Joint Terrorism Task Force.

SACRAMENTO, CA – The Daily Journal named Meyers Nave Principal Ruthann Ziegler to its respected list of California’s “Top 25 Women Corporate and Transactional Lawyers.”  The list honors lawyers who have excelled in the practice of corporate and transactional law.  The Daily Journal recognized Ms. Ziegler for her perseverance and ingenuity in transactional matters during a downward economy. 

Meyers Nave Chief Operating Officer Don Oppenheim helps an Afghanistan teen achieve his dream of getting an education in the United States.

The national organization, IMPACT, honored Eric Casher by naming him the March Leader of the Month for his work in the political and legislative arena and fostering civic engagement.

When Governor Jerry Brown proposed  to eliminate the state’s 400 redevelopment agencies to help balance the budget, many cities and redevelopment agencies reached out to Meyers Nave to help devise strategies to save redevelopment projects should the Governor’s plan come to fruition. 

In Azusa Land Partners v. Department of Industrial Relations, the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal has upheld the California Director of Industrial Relations and the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in determining that use of Mello-Roos bonds to fund certain infrastructure required for a city’s approval of a mixed-use project requires payment of prevailing wages for the construction of all public facilities and infrastructure improvements required for the Project, and not just the public improvements funded by the bond proceeds.

After a 7 day trial in October, chaired by David Skinner and Neli Palma, Judge Cadei issued a ruling in the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cordova v. The Lily Company case.

Los Angeles, CA – The City of Bell ("City") has not stepped away from the bargaining table regarding the Court-Appointed Monitor as suggested by the California Attorney General's office.

In June, Alameda Superior Court Justice Robert Freedman approved Oakland’s first gang injunction against 15 individuals City Attorney John Russo dubbed the “North Side Oakland” gang.

Sacramento, CA – Meyers Nave announced today that J. Scott Smith has joined the firm as Of Counsel, expanding the firm’s well-known writs and appeals litigation practice group.

Oakland, CA – The City of Bell announced today that it has retained attorney James Casso from the law firm of Meyers Nave to serve as its interim City Attorney.

Officials say non-binding standards on building projects add uncertainty to the complex process of environmental impact reviews.

In Los Angeles Unified School District v. Great American Insurance Co. S165113, a decision filed July 12, 2010, the California Supreme Court decided whether a contractor on a public works project may recover in a contract action for extra work or expenses necessitated by a public entity's failure to disclose information that materially affects the cost of performance.

Under state law, counties are authorized to charge fees to cities and other local governments that receive property tax revenues for the costs of administering the property tax system in proportion to the amount of property tax received.

Late last Friday, attorneys Deborah Fox and Ed Grutzmacher from Meyers Naves filed a motion to intervene to allow the City of Chino’s interests to be protected in regards to the reuse of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) Heman G. Stark site.

This morning, in City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, the California Supreme Court held that a public employer must generally first seek relief from the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) before asking a superior court for injunctive relief when the employer believes that a threatened strike may endanger the public welfare.

In County of Los Angeles v. Glendora Redevelopment Project, the Court invalidated the City of Glendora’s Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Glendora Redevelopment Project (Plan) because the Court found that the administrative record did not contain substantial evidence of physical blight in the project area.

In City of Ontario v. Quon, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a narrow ruling that the City's review of a SWAT officer's text messages sent over a City-issued pager was reasonable in the circumstances of that case, and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has issued the first comprehensive guide for developers of residential and commercial projects to determine when a project needs to cut its greenhouse gas emissions.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a “low-level” public employee’s First Amendment retaliation claim could proceed to trial because the employee’s duties did not include reporting misconduct and false statements made to the public agency’s governing board.

California’s first-in-the-nation mandatory green building code - CALGreen - will take effect on January 1, 2011. CALGreen establishes uniform, mandatory minimum green building regulations throughout the State.

Memorandum from State Water Resources Control Board, Office of Chief Counsel

In a setback for redevelopment agencies, Judge Lloyd Connelly ruled today to deny petitions seeking to overturn AB 26 x4 which mandates a statewide contribution from redevelopment agencies equal to an aggregate $1.7 billion during fiscal year 2009-10 and an additional $350 million in fiscal year 2010-11.

The California Court of Appeal issued its first decision on the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Oakland, CA - Meyers Nave announced today that Brenda Aguilar-Guerrero and Henry Hewitt have joined the firm, expanding the firm’s well-known eminent domain practice with two recognized eminent domain attorneys.

In an opinion published on April 16, 2010 the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District held that in cases in which a plaintiff has alleged that a dangerous condition of public property caused injury, the public entity defendant cannot rely on the absence of prior accident claims to prove that the public property did not pose a substantial risk of injury to the plaintiff.

Prosecutors use public nuisance actions to stop gang-related activities

California cities have struggled for decades to combat the gang-related crime and violence that destroy lives and neighborhoods. Despite those efforts, gangs remain a seemingly intractable problem.

General contractors on public works projects often assert close-out claims against the public entity at the end of projects. When this occurs, the method in which the general contractor can prove its damages on a claim is often the major issue.

In Melom v. City of Madera, the Fifth Appellate District revisited the issue of evaluation of the environmental impacts of “Supercenters” under CEQA addressed previously in Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (Bakersfield Citizens) and held that there is nothing about the inherent nature of a supercenter that would require a lead agency to evaluate urban decay impacts.

In September 2009, the Ninth Circuit, in a split decision authored by Judge Bybee, departed from established takings jurisprudence to find that the vacancy control provision of a rent control ordinance for mobile home parks in the City of Goleta caused a taking for which just compensation must be paid, despite the fact that the ordinance clearly did not interfere with the property owner's reasonable investment-backed expectations for the property.

In Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, the California Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision and held that analyzing the “worst case” emission impacts of a new refinery project against the existing facility’s maximum permitted emission levels was inconsistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq. “CEQA”).

Yesterday, in Committee for Green Foothills v. County of Santa Clara, the California Supreme Court considered the question, if a notice of determination ("NOD") has been filed, but an action alleges that no environmental review was undertaken, which statute of limitations applies: (1) the general 30-day limit on challenges following a notice, or (2) the longer 180-day period provided for a case alleging that no environmental determination was made (§ 21167, subd. (a)).

On January 27, 2010 the Court of Appeal filed its decision in Los Angeles Unified School District v. County of Los Angeles et al., in which the Court analyzed the overlap between the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (“ERAF”) legislation in the Revenue and Taxation Code and the pass-through legislation applicable to redevelopment agencies found in the Health and Safety Code.

In VIP of Berlin, LLC v. Town of Berlin, __ F.3d __, 2010 WL 252292 (2nd Cir. Jan. 2010), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a district court ruling and rejected an as-applied vagueness challenge to a Town of Berlin's ordinance and in so doing, presented an excellent discussion of the vagueness doctrine and its application to the construction of the term "substantial".

On January 21, 2010, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling in People v. Kelly (S164830), which essentially eliminates the limitations on the quantity of medical marijuana that a qualified patient or primary caregiver may legally possess or cultivate.

The Court of Appeal has published its December opinion in JSM Rivara, LLC v. the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles (JSM Rivara, LLC v. CRA/LA).

In September 2007, the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) after much public debate adopted comprehensive design guidelines for redevelopment in the North Hollywood Project.

Oakland, CA – Thanks in part to a brief written by Meyers Nave attorneys Joseph Quinn and Nancy Thorington, the U.S. Supreme Court has announced that it will hear City of Ontario v. Quon.

El Dorado County Water Agency Board of Directors voted to terminate its general manager, Bill Hetland, in a closed session on December 9, 2009.

On December 2, the First Appellate District issued an important decision in Schellinger Brothers v. City of Sebastopol rejecting a developer’s ability to challenge a lead agency’s decision to continue processing an environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), even after the expiration of the one-year period for certification of an EIR set forth in CEQA section 21151.5.

Art Hartinger successfully defended the City of Tracy against a wrongful termination suit brought by Tracy's former head of personnel, Kathy McFall.

With the California High Speed Rail Authority (the Authority) moving forward with efforts to bring high speed rail (HSR) service to California, local agencies should be aware that they may be required to consider the HSR project in analyses of the environmental impacts of their local projects.

Regulations for the analysis of greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been finalized and are moving towards adoption. The final amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines have been released and are out for public comment until November 10, 2009.

After a rapid-transit officer kicked up a public dirt storm by shooting an unarmed passenger during a platform melee in the San Francisco Bay Area last New Year’s, the California law firm of Meyers Nave was hired to conduct a wholesale “best practices” review of his agency’s operational policies and general orders.

Two recent cases have provided public agencies with important guidance concerning the selection and evaluation of alternatives in Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"s) prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), as well as on other important issues.

Meyers Nave congratulates Dawn McIntosh for receiving the Phoenix Award at the fall meeting of the ABA's Section on Environment, Energy and Resources held in Baltimore.

In a reply brief filed today with the state Supreme Court, the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office portrayed Presiding Judge James McBride of the San Francisco court as a power-tripping judge overstepping his station by enforcing a policy that permits only two particular judges could approve a plea deal.

On September 16, the California Energy Commission (CEC) released long-awaited guidance on grant allocations for small cities and counties, defined as those cities with a population of less than 35,000 and those counties with a population of less than 200,000, under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program, one of the DOE’s stimulus act (the American Reinvestment and Recover Act, or "ARRA") programs.

A drunken woman is arrested during a sidewalk melee. Sobered up, she claims the cops broke her ribs, committed assault and battery on her, and violated her civil rights by using excessive force. She sues for $1,000,000.

The Ninth Circuit’s June 2009 en banc decision in Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2009) found some of the City of Seattle’s regulations pertaining to street performers and others engaged in expressive conduct to be unconstitutional, including some that it had previously concluded, in 2008, to have passed constitutional muster.

Oakland, CA – Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court properly dismissed two former police officers’ claims that the City of Pittsburg and supervising police officials violated their First Amendment rights after the former officers reported and participated in investigations of various instances of alleged corruption within City departments.

Oakland, CA – Meyers Nave is pleased to announce that seven of the firm’s attorneys have been named to the 2009 list of California’s Super Lawyers, a designation that the Super Lawyers organization uses to denote a “high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.”

Orange County, CA – Meyers Nave law firm announced recently that partner Art Hartinger, chair of the firm’s Labor and Employment Group, successfully defended Orange County (the “County”) against a federal lawsuit brought by the Retired Employees Association of Orange County (“REAOC”) stemming from changes to how rates are set for retiree health care benefits.

Many public agencies are considering the adoption of greenhouse gas reduction measures and plans. These plans help agencies comply with developing legal requirements. They also benefit agencies by retaining local control, reducing legal risk, and saving energy and other costs. There are several resources that provide guidance, technical assistance and funding for the development of these plans.

Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson LLP announced recently that partner Kim Colwell and associate Kevin Gilbert secured a complete defense verdict in their representation of two City of Modesto police officers against charges of assault and battery and use of excessive force while arresting plaintiff Margaret Shepherd during a bar-room brawl at the Copper Rhino Saloon in Modesto, California.

The Ninth Circuit convened in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Monday, June 1, 2009 to hear two appeals involving “donning and doffing” cases brought by public safety personnel. Meyers Nave wrote the briefs for the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties, and attended oral argument.

In this latest installment of our Maximizing Your Stimulus e-Alert series, we summarize HUD’s recently issued NOFA for additional Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) funding appropriated through the ARRA. The NSP was established to assist communities suffering from foreclosures and property abandonment.

The United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program, administered under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provides grants to fund projects that reduce energy use and fossil fuel emissions, and that improve energy efficiency. The deadline for units of local governments and tribal applicants to apply for these grants is June 25, 2009.

There are unique requirements associated with ARRA funding, which require some planning and coordination in the early stages of many initiatives and projects.

Senate Bill 97 directed the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop regulations for the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gases under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). OPR has issued a final draft of these regulations as amendments to the CEQA Guidelines.

On January 22, 2009, David Cunningham, a partner in our Los Angeles office, was appointed to the Los Angeles County Superior Court by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. David will be sworn in on April 15, 2009.

On March 18, 2009, the California Court of Appeal held that the City of Richmond's decision to lay off its firefighters was not subject to collective bargaining, but that the effects of that layoff decision, such as the workload and safety of remaining employees, were subject to the meet and confer requirements of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA).

Building Industry Association of Central California v. City of Patterson holds that affordable housing in lieu fees must be “reasonably related” to the “deleterious impact” caused by new housing.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal ("Court") recently set aside a water supply agreement between a water district and a developer because the agreement improperly committed the water district to a definite course of action without adequate review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the case Riverwatch et. at. v. Olivenhain Municipal Water District.

The Third Appellate District Court of California held in the case California Native Plant Society v. County of El Dorado, that the payment of a rare plant impact in lieu fee, which was not reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), does not presumptively establish that the environmental impacts to rare plants for all projects are fully mitigated such that a developer is entitled to a mitigated negative declaration.

Oakland - An arbitrator has upheld the firing of two Oakland police officers who were part of the "Riders" scandal, city officials said today.

Opinion and Award Regarding Insubordination in the Matter of Arbitration between Oakland Police Officers Association and City of Oakland - Grievants: C. Mabanag and J. Siapno.

The U.S. Supreme Court's January 21 decision in Pearson v. Callahan will affect public officials' use of the "qualified immunity" defense in claims of civil rights violations (Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. ____ (2009) (Slip Op. 07-751, January 21, 2009).

Santa Fe Springs, CA – On January 9, 2009, the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles issued an opinion affirming in full a Los Angeles Superior Court judgment requiring a local strip club to stop violating the City of Santa Fe Spring’s adult entertainment business regulations and zoning restrictions.

Oakland, CA – Meyers Nave has successfully defended a lawsuit against the City of Cotati brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation ("PLF") on behalf of a private landowner, Michael Mead.

Oakland, CA– Meyers Nave is pleased to name its three newest principals: Tim Cremin, Tricia Hynes, and Ruben Duran.

In a decision relevant to redevelopment agencies and other public entities involved in the disposition of land for development, last week the California Supreme Court issued a ruling that addresses when public agencies are permitted to approve development and financing agreements that are contingent upon subsequent CEQA review.

Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 731 (Oropeza) which provides for voluntary statewide certification of massage therapists and massage practitioners by the Massage Therapy Organization ("MTO"), a new nonprofit organization comprised of representatives selected from various agencies.

Assembly Bill 32 requires reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California to 1990 levels no later than 2020. Since the transportation sector contributes over 40% of California's GHG emissions, SB 375 seeks to reduce GHGs from vehicle trips by changing growth patterns in a way that reduces overall driving.

Oakland, CA – On September 18th in Marin County Superior Court, an $8.3 million jury verdict was awarded in favor of the City of Larkspur, CA and against national engineering firm Jacobs Engineering Group with respect to fraudulently concealing defective design work on a bridge retrofit program.

San Francisco, CA– Moira O’Neill has joined Meyers Nave as an associate in their Writs and Appeals Practice Group.

Due to recent legislation, legal owners of vacant residential property purchased at a foreclosure sale, or acquired through foreclosure under a mortgage or deed of trust, must maintain the residential property or face civil fines of up to $1,000 a day.

State law requires the Office of Planning and Research ("OPR") to develop new CEQA Guidelines for the analysis and mitigation of Greenhouse Gas ("GHG") emissions in CEQA documents on or before January 1, 2010. On June 19, OPR, in consultation with the Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the California Air Resources Board ("ARB"), released interim guidance in the form of a Technical Advisory on GHG analysis in CEQA documents.

Oakland, CA –  Meyers Nave Public Power and Telecom group principals Benjamin T. Reyes II and Michael F. Dean recently negotiated a $500 million “green” power purchase agreement between Western GeoPower and the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA).

Los Angeles, CA– Meyers Nave attorneys Deborah Fox and Phil Seymour in the case of Andrew J. Eliopulos v. The City of Palmdale recovered, and successfully defended on appeal, the payment to the City of over $100,000 in attorneys fees by a developer who had sued Palmdale under a development agreement.

Honorable Elaine Rushing of the Sonoma County Superior Court issues a final decision upholding the Tentative Decision of February 26, 2008 in re: Concerned Citizens of Santa Rosa Against Redevelopment Law Abuse, Inc., a California Non-Profit Corporation v. City of Santa Rosa and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Rosa.

This Memorandum describes recent changes in Community Redevelopment Law and summarizes redevelopment agency reporting requirements.

Los Angeles, CA - Meyers Nave is pleased to announce that James ("Jamie") Casso an attorney in the firm's Los Angeles office and member of the firm's Public Law Practice Group has been named a principal.

In this article, Meyers Nave redevelopment, real estate, and affordable housing attorney, Sue Bloch, discusses affordable housing as it pertains to motel conversion.

Prentice v. Board of Administration, PERS, Case No. D049252, 4th Dist., Dec. 7, 2007. Glenn Prentice was the General Manager of the City of Corona's newly created Department of Water and Power. He was paid 10.49% higher than the range listed in the City's salary plan for his position because he was responsible for developing the city's new electric utility. After he retired, the City stopped paying the General Manager of the Department of Water and Power the additional 10.49% pay.

Oakland, CA – Former Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Peter Spinetta prevailed in having a restraining order upheld against Concord lawyer James Disney.

In National Association of Homebuilders v. Defenders of Wildlife, ___ U.S. ___, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed an apparent conflict between mandatory provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

On Wednesday, May 16th, the California Supreme Court granted a petition for review of an appellate decision that could have important implications for California public entities that rely on contingent agreements with developers as a vehicle to pave the way for future development and redevelopment activities.

Oakland, CA - Meyers Nave announces that Principal Deborah J. Fox has been named one of “California's 2007 Top Women Litigators” by the Daily Journal, the state's premier legal publication.

Oakland, CA - Meyers Nave announces the opening of its new San Francisco office located at 575 Market Street, Suite 2600.

Oakland, CA - Meyers Nave principal Deborah Fox successfully defends County of Los Angeles land use regulation in a recent unanimous decision by the California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District.

Flippin v. Los Angeles City Board of Civil Service Commissioners. This case provides insight into who can serve as the hearing officer at a pre-disciplinary Skelly hearing.

Vineyard Area Citizens v. City of Rancho Cordova, California Supreme Court Case No. S132972 (February 1, 2007). The California Supreme Court held an EIR failed to adequately analyze the impacts of a long-term water supply for a long-range plan to develop 6,000 acres with approximately 22,000 residential units.

San Francisco - Minority female attorneys nationwide said they face exclusion from informal networks, inadequate institutional support and challenges to their credibility and authority, according to a new national study released by the American Bar Association.

Oakland, CA (PRWEB) - Meyers Nave, the largest public agency law firm in California, announces the launch of The Public Blawg; a new blog focused on California public agency law public law news.

California Supreme Court Decision in Claremont Police Officers Association v. City of Claremont (06 C.D.O.S. 7440, Slip op. Aug. 15, 2006). Earlier this week, the California Supreme Court filed its decision in the Claremont case, a case in which Meyers Nave filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the League of California Cities. The case concerned the scope of an agency's meet and confer obligations under the MMBA.

Meyers Nave is pleased to announce a substantial victory in a case that affects all public entities that receive property tax revenues, particularly redevelopment agencies that depend on property tax increment revenue to fund their operations.

In Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court (June 22, 2006) Supreme Court No. S133464, the California Supreme Court considered when competitive proposals submitted to a public agency in response to a Request for Proposals ("RFP") for a public contract or lease must be disclosed under the Public Records Act, Government Code section 6250 et seq. (the "Act").

Los Angeles, CA - Meyers Nave announced today that John Harris, a leading Southern California environmental attorney, is joining the firm as a Principal.

Oakland, CA - Referring to the need to promote the redevelopment and cleanup efforts of Brownfields sites, California Environmental Protection Agency's Acting Director Leonard Robinson announced the signing of California's first agreement under the California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act of 2004 (CLRRA), negotiated by Meyers Nave attorney, Leah Goldberg.

Peter Hayes, Amrit Kulkarni, et al for amicus curiae League of California Cities, wrote this Amicus Brief in re: City of Goleta v. Oly Chadmar Sandpiper General Partnership.

Deborah Fox represented the City of Habra in this case which now serves as the touchstone by which operating standards of adult entertainment clubs are judged in the Ninth Circuit and throughout the country. 

Deborah Fox was an attorney for Tily B. v. City of Newport Beach, which decided the degree of regulation the City of Newport Beach had in the operation of adult establishments.

A Pasadena bar owner sought to enjoin the city from enforcing its adult business zoning ordinances. Plaintiff's application was denied by the District Court.