Litigation

Municipalities and related public agencies often become involved in litigation, as both plaintiffs and defendants. This litigation encompasses the full range of government's responsibilities — compliance with the Brown Act, Public Records Act and conflict of interest laws, civil rights litigation, tort litigation, land use disputes, CEQA litigation, code enforcement, construction contract disputes, employee discharge and discrimination issues, inverse condemnation and eminent domain, among others. Attorneys in our Firm have the knowledge and experience in administrative and court procedure necessary to represent public agencies in administrative hearings, mediation, arbitration, civil litigation and appeals involving all of the substantive areas of the law included in our practice. Knowledge of procedure, however, is only one aspect of success in litigation. Knowledge of the area of substantive law involved in the litigation is equally, if not more, important to address and prevail in such matters.

Because litigation is an integral part of our practice, and because our substantive legal knowledge is essential to our success, our litigation experience is described in each of the other practice area descriptions, including discussion of specific cases with which we have been involved. However, some of the significant litigation our attorneys have handled includes:

• Carson Redevelopment Agency v. Padilla (2006) 140 Cal. App. 4th 1323. We litigated this matter to void a tainted contract under Government Code § 1090, the State conflict-of-interest statute, and obtained an award of $850,000 plus costs from a developer who paid $75,000 to obtain a contract. This litigation resulted in a seminal published opinion interpreting Government Code § 1090.
• Illingworth v. City of Cypress, Court of Appeal Case No. G031280 (2003). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and held that the Anti-SLAPP statute was applicable to the free speech conduct of a Cypress employee. This decision resulted in Cypress being awarded nearly $60,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs in its favor. Plaintiff’s $2 million lawsuit against the City and its employee was also defeated in this litigation.
• Ehrlich v. Culver City (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 854. A seminal case in which the California Supreme Court upheld the authority of cities to impose public art programs and development conditions being challenged as unconstitutional.
• Vela v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal. App. 3d 141. A California appellate case that established the attorney-client privilege for police department shooting incident reports.
• Nicolopulos v. City of Lawndale (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1221. The Court of Appeal upheld the City of Lawndale’s removal of its elected City Clerk against the petitioner’s procedural due process challenge.
• Avalon Center Investment Company v. City of Carson, LASC Case No. BS 087688, Court of Appeal Case No. B183893. An unpublished California appellate decision upholding City’s denial of a permit for continued use of an automotive fueling station against the claim that the City Council’s denial was based upon the improper motive of protecting existing competition and denial violated petitioner’s vested rights.
• Craig Teter v. City of Newport Beach (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 446. The California Supreme Court clarified that a person arrested for public intoxication is a prisoner for the purpose of Government Code Immunities and that there is no liability for damages sustained by a prisoner as a consequence of conditions that are common to all inmates and represent reasonable application of policy determinations by jail or prison authorities.
• State of California v. City of Palm Springs. The Attorney General sued to invalidate an agreement between Palm Springs and the Agua Caliente Tribe to sell the Tribe land on which a hotel-casino would be developed, based on state law prohibiting redevelopment agency assistance for gaming. The City prevailed at trial court and the matter was eventually settled.
• United Rock v. City of Irwindale. Mining company sued City to invalidate mining tax increase, to establish its vested rights, and for a declaration that the City’s actions violated a prior settlement agreement. Litigation did not proceed past the demurrer stage and City was able to proceed with regulatory actions.
• El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. Rent Review Com. (1991) 230 Cal. App. 3d 335. Our attorneys successfully represented the City of Palm Springs in a nearly 15-year battle with a mobilehome park owner over application of a rent control ordinance and numerous challenges to the City’s administrative rulings. Some of these decisions resulted in appellate decisions in favor of the City.
• County of Sacramento v. Florin Resources Conservation District. Our attorneys represented the Water District, where the County of Sacramento was challenging the District’s authority to issue bonds and certificates of participation in the amount of $25,000,000. We obtained a favorable ruling for the District in the very early stages of the proceeding, dismissing with prejudice thirteen of the County’s fourteen causes of action against the District, thereby enabling the District to proceed with the issuance of the bonds.
• Several favorable appellate decisions for the City of Carson in numerous challenges to the administrative ruling of its Mobilehome Park Rent Control Board:
• Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. City of Carson Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board, LASC Case No. BS077148, Court of Appeal Case No. B180317, Supreme Court of California;
• Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. City of Carson Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board, LASC Case No. BS077364, Court of Appeal Case No. B170146;
• Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. City of Carson Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board, LASC Case No. BS085137, Court of Appeal Case No. B181771;
• Carson Estates v. City of Carson Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board, LASC Case No. BS079860, Court of Appeal Case No. B171598; and
• Carson Gardens, LLC v. City of Carson Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board, LASC Case No. BS072845, Court of Appeal Case No. B180308.