What is the Joint Exercise of Powers Act?

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.)

Government Tort Claims Act

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.)

Useful Rulings on Joint Exercise of Powers Act

Recent Rulings on Joint Exercise of Powers Act

COALITION FOR AGRICULTURAL RIGHTS V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

ANNA BENEDETTI, ET AL. VS JOHNNY MIMS, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

YVETTE DARLENE PEREZ VS INLAND EMPIRE HEALTH PLAN, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

VINH DUC NGUYEN, ET AL. V. PETER PAU, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

UNSER VS. WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

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."

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

UNSER VS. WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

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."

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL VS SOUTHERN

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”).

  • Hearing

    Apr 23, 2019

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FOOD & WATER WATCH ET AL VS METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF S

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

WESTERN RIVERSIDE VS KAPANICAS

(“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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2019

CITY OF PISMO BEACH V. PACIFIC HARBOR HOMES, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2019

SAN DIEGO COUNTY IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PUBLIC AUTHORITY V. CSAC EXCESS INSURANCE AUTHORITY

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2018

VAUGHAN, SCOTT VS. PLACER COUNTY, ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO VS. MICHAEL COHEN IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

SHRA SHRA is a “joint powers agency” created in 1982 pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Gov.

  • Hearing

    May 18, 2018

HOVHANNES MARKOSYAN VS NAREK PAPUKYAN, ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2018

JOHN JAMIE GLORIEUX VS SHARONN VAN DE GRIFT

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOHN JAMIE GLORIEUX VS SHARONN VAN DE GRIFT

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOHN JAMIE GLORIEUX VS SHARONN VAN DE GRIFT

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOHN JAMIE GLORIEUX VS SHARONN VAN DE GRIFT

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JAMES CATO FERGUSON V. COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2018

IV SOLUTIONS INC VS SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTY SCHOOLS FRINGE BENEFIT CONSORTIUM INSURANCE SERVICES LLC

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

RIO SCHOOL DISTRICT VS NEGELE & ASOCIATES ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2018

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

EDWARD BANDA VS LOS ANGELES HOMELESS SERVICES AUTHORITY ET A

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RIO SCHOOL DISTRICT VS NEGELE & ASSOCIATES ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2017

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

CECILIA CEDILLO VS TRAN NGAN ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JOHN ENG VS. MILLENNIUM PARTNERS I, INC. ET AL

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...

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2016

1 2     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.