Political Reform Act

Useful Rulings on Government Influence (Political Reform Act)

Recent Rulings on Government Influence (Political Reform Act)

FIX THE CITY INC., A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

For instance, in McCauley, the plaintiff filed a complaint for damages against a political committee for violating the reporting requirements of the Political Reform Act. (Id. at 1258.) Four years later the plaintiff filed an amended complaint including additional allegations of violations of reporting laws against different political campaigns. (Id. at 1259.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LINDA WILKINSON VS DON KENDRICK, ET AL.

Government Code section 91005, subdivision (b) makes any “designated employee or public official,” except an elected state official, liable for up to three times the amount of a benefit he or she realizes as a result of violation Government Code section 87100.

  • Hearing

WAHLSTROM VS GLORIA

Under the Political Reform Act, "[n]o civil action may be filed under Section 91004, 91005, or 91005.5 with regard to any person for any violations of this title after the commission has issued an order pursuant to Section 83116 against that person for the same violation." (Govt. Code § 91008.5.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Enforcement

WAHLSTROM VS GLORIA

Under the Political Reform Act, "[n]o civil action may be filed under Section 91004, 91005, or 91005.5 with regard to any person for any violations of this title after the commission has issued an order pursuant to Section 83116 against that person for the same violation." (Govt. Code § 91008.5.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Enforcement

JOSH NEWMAN VS. ALEX PADILLA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In this decision, the FPPC decided that certain surplus campaign fiinds could be transferred to the political candidate despite her treasurer's gross negligence in applying the Political Reform Act. While the Court recognizes that some of the facts from Pirayou are similar to the facts presented by the instant case, the CourtfindsPirayou is neither binding precedent or persuasive.

  • Hearing

JOSH NEWMAN VS. ALEX PADILLA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In this decision, the FPPC decided that certain surplus campaign funds could be transferred to the political candidate despite her treasurer’s gross negligence in applying the Political Reform Act. While the Court recognizes that some of the facts from Pirayou are similar to the facts presented by the instant case, the Court finds Pirayou is neither binding precedent or persuasive.

  • Hearing

LINDA WILKINSON VS DON KENDRICK, ET AL.

Finally, Government Code section 91005, subdivision (b) provides as follows: “(b) Any designated employee or public official specified in Section 87200, except an elected state officer, who realizes an economic benefit as a result of a violation of Section 87100 or of a disqualification provision of a conflict of interest code is liable in a civil action brought by the civil prosecutor or by a person residing within the jurisdiction for an amount up to three times the value of the benefit.”

  • Hearing

IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT VS. RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF

Paragraphs 61-94 Paragraphs 61-94 include Petitioner’s allegations that the Ordinance and/or Indemnity Agreement violated the Brown Act, Civil Code section 2773, the Political Reform Act, the Penal Code, and Government Code section 1090. The court does not strike these allegations for several reasons. The court has rejected some of Respondents’ contentions related to the Brown Act and section 2773 above.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DODD V. AFFORDABLE COMMUNITY LIVING CORPORATION 10:00 A.M.

Fourth, Respondent states, “Administrative decisions under the Political Reform Act . . . provide further support for the view that ACLC’s Board is not a legislative body.” (Opposition; 11:26-12:1.) Rideaux v. Torgrimson (1939) 12 Cal.2d 633, 636, states, “When a legislative body enacts a statute which prescribes the meaning to be given to particular terms used by it, that meaning is binding upon the courts. [Citation.]”

  • Hearing

MILLER VS DESERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE RE: MOTION TO/FOR SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 425.16 (ANTI-SLAPP) BY DESERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Code section 87100, et seq.; 87400; 87478; 88003. Section 87100 addresses equal opportunity. Section 87400 requires that “boards of community college districts shall employ for academic positions, only persons who possess the qualifications therefore prescribed…” Section 87478 allows districts to fill a regular position with a temporary employee in limited circumstances, and section 88003 addresses classified, substitute, and short-term employees.

  • Hearing

FRESNO WATCHDOGS FOR ETHICAL BIDDING V. BROOKE ASHJIAN

.  SI No. 4: If plaintiff contends its purposes is to expose alleged violations of the Political Reform Act of 1974 and conflict of interest statutes regarding bidding on public improvement works solicited by the school district, as alleged in paragraph 1 of the first amended complaint, identify each individual with knowledge which supports that contention.  SI Nos. 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28 and 32: These are all essentially identical.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

VANG V. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES

A public official has a financial interest within the meaning of the Political Reform Act only if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect on the official (as distinguished from an effect on the public generally). (Gov. Code, § 87103.) An effect is considered “reasonably foreseeable” if there is substantial likelihood that such effect will occur; if an effect is only a mere possibility, it is not reasonably foreseeable. (Smith v. Super.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RICHMOND DEVELOPMENT CO. VS. CITY OF RICHMOND

Whether the appeal of the Order prevents the court from conducting a trial on the issues regarding the alleged violations of the Political Reform Act before February 7, 2019; 2. Setting aside issues concerning the scope of any stay while the Order is being appealed, any other reasons why a trial on the issues regarding the alleged violations of the Political Reform Act cannot take place before February 7, 2019; 3.

  • Hearing

BIDART BROS. V. CALIFORNIA APPLE COMMISSION

Accordingly, the Legislature finds that with respect to persons who are elected or appointed to the commission, the particular agricultural industry concerned is tantamount to and constitutes the public generally within the meaning of Section 87103 of the Government Code.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LUKE V. SONOMA COUNTY

Political Reform Act Petitioner has also failed to allege that Respondents violated the Political Reform Act. This law forbids public officials from making or otherwise influencing government decisions in which they have a material financial interest distinguishable from the interests of the general public. (Gov. Code §87100.)

  • Hearing

RICHMOND DEVELOPMENT CO. VS. CITY OF RICHMOND

Second Cause of Action, for violations of Political Reform Act Consistent with the court’s ruling on the request for a preliminary injunction, the court overrules the demurrer to this cause of action. Plaintiffs do not need to allege “evidence.” (See Opening Brief at 10:19.) Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Mayor Butt violated the Political Reform Act and that, absent the violations, the challenged actions, “might not otherwise have been taken . . .” (Gov’t C. § 91003.)

  • Hearing

RICHMOND DEVELOPMENT CO. VS. CITY OF RICHMOND

Analysis Whether to grant the relief requested depends upon both the particular portion of the Political Reform Act at issue and the general rules concerning injunctive relief. The Political Reform Act (the “Act”) became law in 1974 after being adopted as an initiative. (See Gov’t C. § 81000.)

  • Hearing

FOWLER VS CITY OF LAFAYETTE

Political Reform Act Allegations. The City argues that the Second Cause of Action represents an improper attempt to re- raise petitioners’ California Political Reform Act Allegations. The Court disagrees. It views the gist of the Second Cause of Action to be a claim that petitioners were deprived of the right to a fair and unbiased tribunal, in violation of their procedural due process rights. Whether proof of The Court will be dark on Thursday, January 18, 2018.

  • Hearing

CLAUDIA GOVEA ET AL VS BLUPAC INVESTMENTS I LLC

In that case, the plaintiff sued a taxpayer’s association for reporting violations under California's Political Reform Act of 1974. That act permits private citizens to bring actions after first filing with the civil prosecutor a written request for the civil prosecutor to commence the action. The civil prosecutor has 40 days to respond. Id. at 1260. In his original complaint, plaintiff alleged violations in connection with Proposition 36 on the November 1984 ballot.

  • Hearing

MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT ET AL VS PRICE POSTEL & PARMA ETC

Defendants argue that the transactions alleged in the TAC do not violate Government Code sections 1090 or 87100 because the transactions are permitted and because PP&P was not a party to many of these contested agreements. Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

  • Hearing

MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT V. PRICE, POSTEL AND PARMA, LLP, ET AL.

After being granted leave to amend, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on September 27, 2012 that added causes of action for violation of Government Code Sections 1090 and 87100. On March 16, 2012, plaintiffs served written discovery on defendants, including form interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for production of documents. On May 31, 2012, defendants served their responses to the discovery.

  • Hearing

MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT V. PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA, LLP, ET AL.

Wullbrandt for violation of Government Code Sections 1090 and 87100. All of these claims, except the Government Code claims, are governed by Section 340.6(a) as each claim is based upon the same alleged negligent acts or omissions as alleged in the legal malpractice cause of action. See, Pompilio v.

  • Hearing

MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT ET AL VS PRICE POSTEL & PARMA ETC

Thus, the contract between plaintiffs and PP&P to provide legal services in connection with the Ortega Reservoir Project and related litigation did not violate Government Code Sections 1090 and 87100. Plaintiffs also allege that the partnership agreement between Wullbrandt and PP&P violated Sections 1090 and 87100 because Wullbrandt received “additional secret and undisclosed profits and compensation in addition to fees paid to him as general counsel.” (SAC, ¶¶ 108.)

  • Hearing

MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT ET AL VS PRICE POSTEL & PARMA ETC

The Second Amended Complaint references two new causes of action relating to Government Code sections 1090 and 87100 not addressed by the SJM's. The court has been advised that responses related to the pending discovery motions may be required for the propounding parties to respond meaningfully to the SJM's. Further, the new Demurrer and Motion to Strike complicate the handling of the SMJ's.

  • Hearing

MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT ET AL VS PRICE POSTEL & PARMA ETC

The two proposed causes of action assert liability for conflicts of interest pursuant to Government Code sections 1090 and 87100. Defendant C.E. Chip Wullbrandt was the general counsel to each of the plaintiffs during the events upon which plaintiffs’ claims are based. (Proposed Second Amended Complaint [“PSAC”], ¶ 4.)

  • Hearing

1

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.