The Joint Exercise of Powers Act allows two or more public agencies to agree to jointly exercise any power they hold in common, or to create a separate entity to do so. (Gov. Code, § 6502; Zack v. Marin Emergency Radio Authority (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 617, 628.)
“For the purposes of this article, the agency is a public entity separate from the parties to the agreement” and the agency “shall have the power to sue and be sued in its own name.” (Gov. Code, § 6507 & § 6508; San Diegans for Open Gov. v. City of San Diego (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 416, 436.) However, section 6509 allows the signatories to a joint powers agreement to designate one constituent agency whose procedural requirements will govern the agency in the exercise of common powers. (Zack v. Marin Emergency Radio Authority (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 617, 638.)
The Government Tort Claims Act governs tort actions against public entities and public employees. (Gov. Code, §§ 810 et seq.)
The Government Tort Claims Act regulates liability imposed upon public entities pursuant to a joint powers agreement. (Gov. Code, §§ 810 et seq.) “Whenever any public entities enter into an agreement, they are jointly and severally liable.” (Gov. Code, § 895.2; Ross v. Campbell USD (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 113, 118.) A new entity created by a joint powers agreement shares in that liability as it is part of “an agreement under which a public entity undertakes to perform any function, service or act with or for any other public entity or employee with its consent.” (Gov. Code, § 895.)
Petitioner’s lawsuit is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 526, 1060, 1085, and 1094.5; Government Code section 6500 et seq.; and Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (Pet., ¶ 22.) Petitioner claims that the County abused its discretion in adopting the Ordinances. (Ex Parte App., p. 12, l. 22.)
Jun 23, 2020
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Plaintiffs also argue that they need the documents as soon as possible because the County has threatened to file a malicious prosecution claim against plaintiffs, so plaintiffs need to determine whether the County had a joint powers agreement with the City, and whether the County is a viable party. Plaintiffs argue that key witnesses, such as supervisors at MASH, may become unavailable due to the stay, and that the more time that passes, the less fresh information will be in the minds of the witnesses.
Mar 13, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
IEHP argues that it is a “public-entity HMO that operates under a joint powers agreement between Riverside and San Bernardino Counties to provide health coverage for Medi-Cal participants.” (Motion at p. 12; Napoli Decl. ¶ 2.) Under Government Code section 6500, a joint powers authority is a public agency. (Gov. Code § 6500.) Th Court agrees with IEHP that it is a public agency to which CCP section 394 applies. The FEHA Statute The FEHA venue statute also applies to this case.
Jan 27, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Cuatro's second and eighth affirmative defenses, which were alleged as mere legal conclusions, were not sufficient to put at issue the question Cuatro now argues on appeal, which is that the Joint Powers Agreement signed on October 10, 2003, was ultra vires and void because it was substantively different than what was submitted for the Board's review prior to adoption of resolution No. 10- 2003. The court does not find Quantification to be persuasive here.
Sep 05, 2019
Presiding
Santa Clara County, CA
Attached to the SAC as "Exhibit A" is the "Joint Powers Agreement of the Western Riverside Council of Governments." The preamble to the agreement states: "This Agreement is made and entered into on the 1st day of April, 1991, pursuant to Government Code Section 6500 et. seq. and other pertinent provisions of law, by and between six or more of the cities located within Western Riverside County and the County of Riverside."
Jul 24, 2019
Other
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
Attached to the SAC as "Exhibit A" is the "Joint Powers Agreement of the Western Riverside Council of Governments." The preamble to the agreement states: "This Agreement is made and entered into on the 1st day of April, 1991, pursuant to Government Code Section 6500 et. seq. and other pertinent provisions of law, by and between six or more of the cities located within Western Riverside County and the County of Riverside."
Jul 24, 2019
Other
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
On September 8, 2015, at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of AVSTA, the Board approved “Amendment No. 1 to Joint Powers Agreement” (the “2015 Amendment”). (SCR’s UMF 14.) The 2015 Amendment deleted and replaced Section 18, Liability with Section 18, Liability and Insurance.[3] (SCR’s UMF 15.) On May 5, 2015, John Doe, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Tracy S., filed an action against the District and AVSTA (the “Underlying Action”).
Apr 23, 2019
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, the fourth cause of action does not specify in what manner the WaterFix Authorization violates Water Code Appendix 109, Section 200 of the District Act, or the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, Gov. Code § 6500, 6502. The particular statutory section, and the manner of the violations thereof, must be specifically pled.
Mar 15, 2019
Other
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
(“Joint Exercise of Powers Act”) and that the Joint Exercise of Powers Act and Plaintiff’s Joint Powers Agreement give Plaintiff the power to sue and be sued in its own name. Plaintiff alleges that it is a “political subdivision” within the meaning of Gov.
Feb 14, 2019
Riverside County, CA
However, the Court finds Zack distinguishable inasmuch as it involved a different statutory scheme (the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, Gov. Code, § 6500, et seq.) and specifically involved the application of local land use regulations to construction of emergency communication systems – a matter of public safety. (Id. at pp. 634-635.)
Jan 03, 2019
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Both parties point to Article 31 of the Joint Powers Agreement, attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint, to show the parties agreed to arbitrate. However, the parties disagree as to when arbitration should be conducted. The parties were ready to commence arbitration. But Defendant withdrew because it discovered the underlying litigation remains pending. Defendant contends that its coverage decision requires finality of the underlying litigation judgment.
Sep 21, 2018
Orange County, CA
It alleges the building permit violates the California Planning and Zoning Laws under Government Code section 6500 et seq. as the County improperly issued the commercial permit in an area zoned residential. (Id. at ¶¶40, 41(e).) This claim is barred by the statute of limitations under Government Code section 65009. “ ‘Section 65009 is located in division 1 (Planning and Zoning) of title 7 (Planning and Land Use) of the Government Code.
Jun 12, 2018
Administrative
Writ
Placer County, CA
SHRA SHRA is a “joint powers agency” created in 1982 pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Gov.
May 18, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
Cuatro's second and eighth affirmative defenses, which were alleged as mere legal conclusions, were not sufficient to put at issue the question Cuatro now argues on appeal, which is that the Joint Powers Agreement signed on October 10, 2003, was ultra vires and void because it was substantively different than what was submitted for the Board's review prior to adoption of resolution No. 10-2003.” Quantification, at 813-814.
Mar 16, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Cuatro's second and eighth affirmative defenses, which were alleged as mere legal conclusions, were not sufficient to put at issue the question Cuatro now argues on appeal, which is that the Joint Powers Agreement signed on October 10, 2003, was ultra vires and void because it was substantively different than what was submitted for the Board's review prior to adoption of resolution No. 10-2003. In re Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th at 813.
Mar 15, 2018
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
Cuatro's second and eighth affirmative defenses, which were alleged as mere legal conclusions, were not sufficient to put at issue the question Cuatro now argues on appeal, which is that the Joint Powers Agreement signed on October 10, 2003, was ultra vires and void because it was substantively different than what was submitted for the Board's review prior to adoption of resolution No. 10-2003. In re Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th at 813.
Mar 15, 2018
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
Cuatro's second and eighth affirmative defenses, which were alleged as mere legal conclusions, were not sufficient to put at issue the question Cuatro now argues on appeal, which is that the Joint Powers Agreement signed on October 10, 2003, was ultra vires and void because it was substantively different than what was submitted for the Board's review prior to adoption of resolution No. 10-2003. In re Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th at 813.
Mar 15, 2018
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
Cuatro's second and eighth affirmative defenses, which were alleged as mere legal conclusions, were not sufficient to put at issue the question Cuatro now argues on appeal, which is that the Joint Powers Agreement signed on October 10, 2003, was ultra vires and void because it was substantively different than what was submitted for the Board's review prior to adoption of resolution No. 10-2003. In re Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th at 813.
Mar 15, 2018
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
CVAG lacks the power to adopt and implement the NEV component because under the governing Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) CVAG may only act as authorized in an implementation agreement, and such power is delegated to CVAG in neither of the only two implementation agreements approved by CVAG. The Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement authorizes CVAG “to provide for the planning, design financing, and construction of transportation facilities.” CVAG, RJN, Exh.
Mar 09, 2018
Riverside County, CA
Defendant was formed pursuant to a joint powers agreement as an "Agency" separate and apart from the public education agencies that created it. Deft.'s RJN, Ex. 1, p. 2. Defendant is also registered as a corporation. Pltf.'s RJN, Ex. 4. Thus, defendant is arguably a public corporation, which is a public agency as defined in Section 53050. Thus, whether plaintiff is excused from complying with the Government Claims Act is an issue that is beyond the scope of demurrer.
Mar 08, 2018
Contract
Contract - Other
San Diego County, CA
At the time of these events, District had liability coverage under a joint powers agreement with the Ventura County Schools Self-Funding Authority (“VCSSFA”). District was also covered under a series of insurance policies that provided excess liability coverage. Firm, however, never tendered any of the consolidated claims to District’s excess insurers.
Feb 23, 2018
Santa Barbara County, CA
As shown by the records subject to judicial notice, LAHSA was created by a joint powers agreement between the County and City. Gov. Code §§6500 et seq. allows two or more public entities to enter into an agreement to create a new agency that will exercise their powers. The joint power statutes expressly provide that “For the purposes of this article, the agency is a public entity separate from the parties to the agreement” and the agency “shall have the power to sue and be sued in its own name.” Gov.
Feb 23, 2017
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Any coverage afforded by VCSSFA under the joint powers agreement is therefore immaterial. Firm and Negele next argue that District’s negligence claim fails to satisfy the damages element because District has not alleged that it would have achieved a better result if its insurance policies had been investigated.
Feb 03, 2017
Santa Barbara County, CA
Tri City was created on January 1, 2008 pursuant to a Joint Powers Agreement entered into by the cities of La Verne, Pomona, and Claremont. UMF, No. 5. At all relevant times, Ngan was an employee of Tri City and was acting in the course and scope of said employment. UMF, No. 8. Tri City is not aware of any government claim filed by Plaintiff prior to the commencement of this action. UMF, No. 6.
Jan 17, 2017
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Los Angeles County, CA
Specially Appearing Defendant Millennium Partners I, Inc. Notice Of Motion And Motion To Quash Service Of Summons Matter on calendar for Thursday, November 2, 2016, Line 5, DEFENDANT MILLENNIUM PARTNERS I, INC. Motion To Quash Service Of Summons. The matter is taken off calendar. The complex litigation department issued an order designating...
Nov 03, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.
