Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
The Political Reform Act of 1974 (Act) was an initiative measure intended to correct election abuses in California. (Calif. Common Cause v. Fair Political Practices (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 647, 649 citing Government Code §§ 81001, 81002; see Diamond et al., California's Political Reform Act: Greater Access to the Initiative Process (1975) 7 Sw.U.L.Rev. 453, 463-464; hereafter cited as California's Political Reform Act.) The drafters designed the Act to provide California voters a greater degree of governmental supervision over the political process. (Id.) The Act was deemed necessary as the legislative and executive departments had been generally unresponsive to political reform. (California's Political Reform Act, supra, at 464.) It is the intent of the Act that "[s]tate and local government . . . serve the needs and respond to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth." (Calif. Common Cause, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at 649 citing Gov. Code § 81001(a).)
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.) An official has a disqualifying financial interest in a government decision “if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally,” on the official’s financial interests. (Gov. Code § 87103; Cal. Code Regs, tit. 2, §§ 18700(a), 18703.)
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. Ct. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 205, 212.)
“Taken together, a public official has a conflict of interest under section 87100 if:
(Santa Clarita Organization for Planning & the Environment v. Abercrombie (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 300, 314 citing Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. California Milk Producers Advisory Bd. (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 433, 436.)
If a qualifying conflict exists, the public official is to disclose the conflict and recuse himself or herself (Gov. Code § 87105); if that does not happen, a court "may" — but is not required to — "set the official action aside as void" (Gov. Code § 91003(b); see All Towing Services LLC v. City of Orange (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 946, 957-958.)
Gov. Code § 91005 is the liability provision encompassed in the Political Reform Act of 1974, as codified in Gov. Code §§ 81000 through 91014. § 87100 prohibits public officials from acting to influence a government decision in which they have a financial interest.
Gov. Code § 91003 is one of the enforcement provisions of the Political Reform Act, and states, in relevant part: "Any person residing in the jurisdiction may sue for injunctive relief to enjoin violations or to compel compliance with the provisions of this title...." (Gov. Code § 91003(a).)
The 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. (McCauley v. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1260.)
"[...] Weinreb correctly states that the primary purpose of the prevailing party attorneys' fee provisions of the Political Reform Act is to encourage private litigation enforcing the act.” (People v. Roger Hedgecock for Mayor Com (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 810, 816.) “The Supreme Court explained in Christiansburg that a rule which routinely awarded attorneys' fees to prevailing defendants ‘... could discourage all but the most airtight claims, for seldom can a prospective plaintiff be sure of ultimate success.’” (Id.) “No matter how honest one's belief that he has been... [wronged], no matter how meritorious one's claim may appear at the outset, the course of litigation is rarely predictable.” (Id.) “Decisive facts may not emerge until discovery or trial.” (Id.) “The law may change or clarify in the midst of litigation.” (Id.) “Even when the law or the facts appear questionable or unfavorable at the outset, a party may have an entirely reasonable ground for bringing suit.” (Id. citing Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC (1978) 434 U.S. 412 at 422.)
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.)
LUKE V. SONOMA COUNTY
SCV-261999
Jun 20, 2018
René Auguste Chouteau
Sonoma County, CA
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.
RICHMOND DEVELOPMENT CO. VS. CITY OF RICHMOND
MSN17-2188
Aug 29, 2018
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
LINDA WILKINSON VS DON KENDRICK, ET AL.
18STCV08090
Oct 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant CSLB further argues that the Political Reform Act does not provide a private right of action, and in any case, it is immune from suit based on the acts of its employee, Defendant Holloway, because Government Code section 821.6 immunizes Defendant Holloway.
WALSH VS WHITLEY
37-2021-00038899-CU-FR-CTL
Jun 02, 2023
San Diego County, CA
[5] As stated in Travis III : [W]e conclude applying an asymmetrical standard to fee awards under the Political Reform Act is consistent with the principles outlined by our high court in Christiansburg .
ARNETTE TRAVIS ET AL VS BILL BRAND ET AL
BC665330
Jan 22, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) violation of Political Reform Act by CPAH and CBR (Government Code § 91003), (2) violation of Political Reform Act by CFRH. Defendants now move to transfer this action to Sacramento County. Plaintiff opposes the motion.
YES ON 21, HOMEOWNERS AND TENANTS UNITED TO KEEP FAMILIES IN THEIR HOMES, SPONSORED BY AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, A CALIFORN VS NO ON PROP 21: CALIFORNIANS FOR RESPONSIBLE HOUSING, A COALITION OF SENIORS, VETERANS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVOCATES, LABOR &
20STCV37190
May 14, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Nor does an earlier Court of Appeal opinion discussing the interaction of the Political Reform Act and the predecessor to § 65009 apply. (See Ching v. San Francisco Bd. of Permit Appeals (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 888, 896.) Ching’s statement that the predecessor to § 65009 supplied the relevant limitations period regardless of the grounds for the challenge was dicta. The Court of Appeal found the relevant portion of the Political Reform Act didn’t apply to mandamus petitions in the first place.
LAGUNA BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION COALITION VS. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
30-2021-01178477
Jun 04, 2021
Orange County, CA
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.
MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT ET AL VS PRICE POSTEL & PARMA ETC
1384682
Nov 05, 2012
Santa Barbara County, CA
Plaintiffs assert that Ordinance No. 5114 is unlawful because (1) Supervisor Hartmann had a conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act (Gov.
JACOB PICKERING ET AL VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ET AL
20CV03338
Feb 22, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT VS. RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF
BS175175
Feb 25, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
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.
MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT ET AL VS PRICE POSTEL & PARMA ETC
1384682
Feb 25, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
The court disagreed, finding that "California election law disputes are more like the ordinary civil litigation setting in Fogerty" and that the Political Reform Act was "not like the statute in Christiansburg." (Ibid.) The court held that the "statute means what it says" and that "prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants are to be treated alike." (Ibid.)
SPOTLIGHT ON COASTAL CORRUPTION VS KINSEY
37-2016-00028494-CU-MC-CTL
Sep 01, 2021
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
As to the November 16th post, the Mayor argues the corruption investigation of his conduct by the City Attorney was unauthorized by the Political Reform Act. The relevance and basis of this argument is unclear and how it defeats the privilege at issue is also unclear.
MSN21-2247
Dec 29, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
VANG V. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
17CECG04085
Oct 29, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Government Code section 87100 provides as follows: “No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest.” Under Govt.
LINDA WILKINSON VS DON KENDRICK, ET AL.
18STCV08090
Jan 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
MILLER VS DESERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
PSC1904248
Sep 20, 2019
Riverside County, CA
Section 87100, the Political Reform Act (PRA), prohibits public officials from making, participating in, or in any way attempting to use their official position to influence a governmental decision in which they know or have reason to know they have a financial interest. (Govt Code § 87100.)
LONG BEACH COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT VS SUNNY ZIA, , IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE LONG BEACH COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES
20STCP03604
Nov 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
WAHLSTROM VS GLORIA
37-2019-00043494-CU-JR-CTL
Sep 17, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Other
Enforcement
.; (2) violation of the Political Reform Act; (3) violation of the common law prohibition against conflicts of interest; (4) breach of lease; (5) money had and received; (6) declaratory relief; and (7) eminent domain. See Ex. B to the Lusher Declaration. The cases were subsequently consolidated as Case No. 14-9108 (the "Pending Action"). See the Complaint at ¶ 14.
TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT VS MEDICAL ACQUISITION COMPANY INC
37-2020-00022703-CU-BC-NC
Dec 17, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
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.)
MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT ET AL VS PRICE POSTEL & PARMA ETC
1384682
Sep 24, 2012
Santa Barbara County, CA
Code § 87100, 87103.) Defendant argues that no such situation exists here, and Plaintiff cannot prove the contrary. The Court finds that the gravamen of Plaintiff’s suit falls into two general types of conduct: the conduct associated with Plaintiff’s retaliation claim and the conduct associated with Plaintiff’s claims that Lysik was improperly chosen over him for the City Manager position.
JEFFREY RUBIN VS CITY OF CALABASAS, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
20STCV19874
Feb 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
JOSH NEWMAN VS. ALEX PADILLA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
34-2020-80003453-CU-WM-GDS
Aug 21, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
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.
CLAUDIA GOVEA ET AL VS BLUPAC INVESTMENTS I LLC
1383239
Apr 08, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.]”
DODD V. AFFORDABLE COMMUNITY LIVING CORPORATION
30-2018-00984306-CU-WM-CJC
Jan 14, 2020
Orange County, CA
Petitioner’s Conflict of Interest Claims Under Government Code Sections 1090 and 87100 In the petition, as alternative grounds for writ of mandate, Petitioner also suggests that Respondent may have a financial conflict of interest under Government Code sections 1090 and 87100. (Pet. ¶¶ 40-41.) Petitioner has not attempted to show a probability of success on these claims in its opposition brief. (See Oppo. 18-19.)
LONG BEACH COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT VS SUNNY ZIA, , IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE LONG BEACH COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES
20STCP03604
Jul 06, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
. 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.
FRESNO WATCHDOGS FOR ETHICAL BIDDING V. BROOKE ASHJIAN
17CECG02900
Jan 08, 2019
Fresno County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
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.
MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT ET AL VS PRICE POSTEL & PARMA ETC
1384682
Dec 03, 2012
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.”
BIDART BROS. V. CALIFORNIA APPLE COMMISSION
01CECG02550
Aug 28, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
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.)
FIX THE CITY INC., A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
18STCP02720
Oct 15, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
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.”
LINDA WILKINSON VS DON KENDRICK, ET AL.
18STCV08090
Jul 17, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Case Number: 21STCP03437 Hearing Date: November 29, 2021 Dept: 74 21STCP03437 IN THE MATTER OF: JEFFREY OSORIO The court intends to deny the petition on the ground that no proof of publication was filed. Petitioner may, but need not, appear and be heard. If petitioner does not appear, the petition will be dismissed without prejudice and...
IN THE MATTER OF: JEFFREY OSORIO
21STCP03437
Nov 29, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Case Number: 21STCP03446 Hearing Date: November 29, 2021 Dept: 74 21STCP03446 IN THE MATTER OF: HILARY KRAUSE NO APPEARANCE IS NECESSARY. The petition will be granted. A copy of the signed decree will be available in Room 112 of the Clerk's Office seven days after the date of the hearing....
IN THE MATTER OF: HILARY KRAUSE
21STCP03446
Nov 29, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Continued to 1/18/22 to address the following issues: 1) Bond is insufficient. 2) Pleadings have not been properly verified. Note: tentative ruling continuances are final and uncontestable and are not subject to Local Rule 14.10.B....
THE ESTATE OF RICHARD SOLORZANO
PES16300475
Dec 21, 2021
SEAN BANG
San Francisco County, CA
Grant without hearing...
THE ESTATE OF LUISA VALLE
PES15298744
Dec 21, 2021
HELEN TROWBRIDGE
San Francisco County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.