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.)
DISCUSSION The Court takes judicial notice of the authenticated copy of the Joint Powers Agreement attached to the demurrer. Cal. Evid. Code § 452 (b) & (h). Respondent raises two grounds as a basis for the Demurrer to the Petition for Writ of Mandate: 1.)
Administrative
Writ
Ventura County, CA
The website contains the agreement between the California Science Center (the Sixth District Agricultural Association, an institution of the State of California), City of Los Angeles, and the County of Los Angeles to establish LAMCC under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act. The website also contains the Second Amendment to the Lease and Agreement between LAMCC and USC. The unopposed Request is GRANTED. The Court judicially notices the existence of these documents.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
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.” (Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 812–813.)
El Dorado County, CA
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."
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”).
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Administrative
Writ
Placer County, CA
SHRA SHRA is a “joint powers agency” created in 1982 pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Gov.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
