Joint Exercise of Powers Act in California

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."

(“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.

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

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.

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.

Because this case involves ICRMAs contractual obligations pursuant to the joint powers agreement as opposed to the validity of the joint powers agreement itself, the court finds the doctrine of waiver and estoppel are applicable. Thus, even if the November 2016 assessment was not conducted in accordance with ICRMAs bylaws, the City may still be liable if ICRMA can establish the City waived any defects with the assessment.

SAFCA is a joint powers agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. to among other things provide the Sacramento metropolitan area with at least 100-year flood protection as quickly as possible. Plaintiff SAFCA asserts that in order to implement the Project, it must acquire substantial portions of property along the Natomas Basin. As a consequence it has filed the above referenced eminent domain actions.

SAFCA is a joint powers agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. to among other things provide the Sacramento metropolitan area with at least 100-year flood protection as quickly as possible. Plaintiff SAFCA asserts that in order to implement the Project, it must acquire substantial portions of property along the Natomas Basin. As a consequence it has filed the above referenced eminent domain actions.

SAFCA is a joint powers agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. to among other things provide the Sacramento metropolitan area with at least 100-year flood protection as quickly as possible. Plaintiff SAFCA asserts that in order to implement the Project, it must acquire substantial portions of property along the Natomas Basin. As a consequence it has filed the above referenced eminent domain actions.

SAFCA is a joint powers agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. to among other things provide the Sacramento metropolitan area with at least 100-year flood protection as quickly as possible. Plaintiff SAFCA asserts that in order to implement the Project, it must acquire substantial portions of property along the Natomas Basin. As a consequence it has filed the above referenced eminent domain actions.

SAFCA is a joint powers agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. to among other things provide the Sacramento metropolitan area with at least 100-year flood protection as quickly as possible. Plaintiff SAFCA asserts that in order to implement the Project, it must acquire substantial portions of property along the Natomas Basin. As a consequence it has filed the above referenced eminent domain actions.

SAFCA is a joint powers agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. to among other things provide the Sacramento metropolitan area with at least 100-year flood protection as quickly as possible. Plaintiff SAFCA asserts that in order to implement the Project, it must acquire substantial portions of property along the Natomas Basin. As a consequence it has filed the above referenced eminent domain actions.

SAFCA is a joint powers agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. to among other things provide the Sacramento metropolitan area with at least 100-year flood protection as quickly as possible. Plaintiff SAFCA asserts that in order to implement the Project, it must acquire substantial portions of property along the Natomas Basin. As a consequence it has filed the above referenced eminent domain actions.

SAFCA is a joint powers agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. to among other things provide the Sacramento metropolitan area with at least 100-year flood protection as quickly as possible. Plaintiff SAFCA asserts that in order to implement the Project, it must acquire substantial portions of property along the Natomas Basin. As a consequence it has filed the above referenced eminent domain actions.

SAFCA is a joint powers agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. to among other things provide the Sacramento metropolitan area with at least 100-year flood protection as quickly as possible. Plaintiff SAFCA asserts that in order to implement the Project, it must acquire substantial portions of property along the Natomas Basin. As a consequence it has filed the above referenced eminent domain actions.

SAFCA is a joint powers agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. to among other things provide the Sacramento metropolitan area with at least 100-year flood protection as quickly as possible. Plaintiff SAFCA asserts that in order to implement the Project, it must acquire substantial portions of property along the Natomas Basin. As a consequence it has filed the above referenced eminent domain actions.

SAFCA is a joint powers agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. to among other things provide the Sacramento metropolitan area with at least 100-year flood protection as quickly as possible. Plaintiff SAFCA asserts that in order to implement the Project, it must acquire substantial portions of property along the Natomas Basin. As a consequence it has filed the above referenced eminent domain actions.

SAFCA is a joint powers agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. to among other things provide the Sacramento metropolitan area with at least 100-year flood protection as quickly as possible. Plaintiff SAFCA asserts that in order to implement the Project, it must acquire substantial portions of property along the Natomas Basin. As a consequence it has filed the above referenced eminent domain actions.

SAFCA is a joint powers agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. to among other things provide the Sacramento metropolitan area with at least 100-year flood protection as quickly as possible. Plaintiff SAFCA asserts that in order to implement the Project, it must acquire substantial portions of property along the Natomas Basin. As a consequence it has filed the above referenced eminent domain actions.

SAFCA is a joint powers agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. to among other things provide the Sacramento metropolitan area with at least 100-year flood protection as quickly as possible. Plaintiff SAFCA asserts that in order to implement the Project, it must acquire substantial portions of property along the Natomas Basin. As a consequence it has filed the above referenced eminent domain actions.

SAFCA is a joint powers agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. to among other things provide the Sacramento metropolitan area with at least 100-year flood protection as quickly as possible. Plaintiff SAFCA asserts that in order to implement the Project, it must acquire substantial portions of property along the Natomas Basin. As a consequence it has filed the above referenced eminent domain actions.

It is additionally unclear to the Court whether the Joint Exercise of Powers Act was then in effect in 1889 when the Compromise was signed, or whether this Act was intended to apply retroactively. Regardless, the Court concludes the Compromise is not a joint powers agreement within the meaning of Gov. Code sec. 6500, et seq . [1] Insofar as Plaintiff contends the City and AVWC are liable for the conduct of SGRWC’s members because SGRWC constitutes a joint venture, this argument is also rejected.

ASCIP argues it is a public entity formed pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act. LAUSDs letter tendering defense to ASCIP cannot satisfy the claims filing requirements since LAUSD delivered its tender letters before Plaintiff filed the complaint. Therefore, Plaintiffs claims are barred for failure to file a government claim within one year of accrual. In opposition, LAUSD argues that a public entity is not required to present a claim to another public entity before filing suit.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Here, the government entity was CVAG, a joint powers authority under California Government Code section 6500 et seq., and a duly constituted public entity and agency. (UF 1.) CVAG's PACE Program Administrator was Ygrene LLC. (UF 2.) On September 26, 2014, GSFA’s board adopted a resolution declaring its intention to establish, under SB 555, a separate PACE program within a separate CFD: Community Facilities District No. 2014-1 (GSFA-CFD). (UF 11.)

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.

Hope Public Schools ("Plaintiff") alleges in paragraph 3 of the 4AC alleges that "SHPS qualifies under Government Code section 6528 as a public agency pursuant to section 6500, of Government Code eligible for membership in a joint powers agreement for risk-pooling, and is therefore excepted from the claim filing requirements of Government Code section 905, pursuant to subdivision (i) thereof, if the filing of claim were necessary."

Here, the government entity was CVAG, a joint powers authority under California Government Code section 6500 et seq., and a duly constituted public entity and agency. (UF 1.) CVAG's PACE Program Administrator was Ygrene LLC. (UF 2.) On September 26, 2014, GSFA’s board adopted a resolution declaring its intention to establish, under SB 555, a separate PACE program within a separate CFD: Community Facilities District No. 2014-1 (GSFA- CFD). (UF 11.)

Here, the government entity was CVAG, a joint powers authority under California Government Code section 6500 et seq., and a duly constituted public entity and agency. (UF 1.) CVAG's PACE Program Administrator was Ygrene LLC. (UF 2.) On September 26, 2014, GSFA’s board adopted a resolution declaring its intention to establish, under SB 555, a separate PACE program within a separate CFD: Community Facilities District No. 2014-1 (GSFA- CFD). (UF 11.)

Plaintiffs fail to carry this burden and instead point to the provision of Metrolinks joint powers agreement that states member agencies are involved in operational decisions, fare structure, and other policy areas.

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.)

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.

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.

In support, City Defendants point to the following features of Plaintiff’s SAC: - Plaintiff erroneously sued the IPHMA as the “Industry Housing Authority” despite this error being raised with Plaintiff’s counsel numerous times and because Plaintiff has falsely alleged that IPHMA is “just a division” of the City when they both know that IPHMA is a separate public entity formed under the joint powers agreement with its own independent board.

Next, Defendant cites to Government Code section 990.8(c) , which states, “The pooling of self-insured claims or losses among [entities in a joint powers agreement] shall not be considered insurance nor be subject to regulation under the Insurance Code. ” (Gov. Code § 990.9, subd . (c).) Defendant has provided sufficient authority to distinguish a risk pool from a traditional insurance policy or insuring agreement .

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.

Specifically, Plaintiff is authorized to take the property pursuant to Government Code § 6500 et seq. To begin, a condemning agency must adopt a resolution of necessity, pursuant to CP § 1245.220. Here, on December 12, 2022, Plaintiff adopted the Resolution of Necessity authorizing acquisition of the Property Interests for the Property. (Motion 7: 28 8: 1.) This Resolution establishes the need to use eminent domain to obtain the Property Interests, pursuant to CCP §§ 1245.250(a) and 1240.030.

In the present case, the government entity is CVAG, a joint powers authority under California Government Code section 6500 et seq., and a duly constituted public entity and agency. CVAG’s PACE Program Administrator was Ygrene LLC. (See TAC, ¶¶ 4-6, 12-16.) Plaintiff alleges that Ygrene Inc. is liable as the alter ego of Ygrene LLC. (TAC, ¶¶ 106-117.)

The MRCA is a public entity established pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Government Code Section 6500 et seq.). (Sandoval Decl., ¶ 3.) Its purpose is the preservation and management of local open space and parkland, watershed lands, trails, coastal accessways, and wildlife habitat throughout Southern California. (Ibid.) These agencies have executed a reciprocal management agreement covering the properties owned by each agency. (Sandoval Decl. ¶ 9.)

Plaintiff cites to the Joint Powers Agreement ("JPA") with nineteen cities (including Tustin) and the County of Orange pertaining to the formation of the OCFA. Plaintiff reasons that Tustin retains benefits from being a member city of the OCFA, including but not limited to fire protection services within the city of Tustin, so Tustin can be considered the hirer and OCFA an independent contractor. (Opp. at pp. 5-6 & Exh. 1.)

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.)

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.

Inland Empire Health Plan (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 794, 798 [IEHP is the local initiative Medi-Cal managed care plan that operates under a joint powers agreement between Riverside and San Bernardino Counties to provide health coverage for Medi-Cal participants ].) The first amended complaint does not allege any likelihood of a future controversy involving plaintiffs and defendant because plaintiffs do not live in Riverside or San Bernardino County.

Code, § 895 states: As used in this chapter agreement means a joint powers agreement entered into pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, an agreement to transfer the functions of a public entity or an employee thereof to another public entity pursuant to Part 2 (commencing with Section 51300) of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code, and any other agreement under which a public entity undertakes to perform any function, service or act with

Code, § 895 states: As used in this chapter agreement means a joint powers agreement entered into pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, an agreement to transfer the functions of a public entity or an employee thereof to another public entity pursuant to Part 2 (commencing with Section 51300) of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code, and any other agreement under which a public entity undertakes to perform any function, service or act with

California Statewide Communities Development Authority represents itself as a public entity created under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act. California Statewide Communities Development Authority additionally alleges immunity under Government Code section 8181.8. Government Code section 8181 establishes authority for the creation of redevelopment agencies, but no such section identified as 8181.8 otherwise exists.

California Statewide Communities Development Authority represents itself as a public entity created under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act. California Statewide Communities Development Authority additionally alleges immunity under Government Code section 8181.8. Government Code section 8181 establishes authority for the creation of redevelopment agencies, but no such section identified as 8181.8 otherwise exists.

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.

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.

The Authority here is a joint powers authority formed pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, Government Code sections 6500 et seq. (SSUMF, Fact No. 1, and plaintiffs' response.)

While Gnass was city attorney, Waterford entered into a joint powers agreement with its redevelopment agency to create the Waterford Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”). (Ibid.) The Waterford City Council served as the board of the Authority and Gnass served as the Authority’s attorney. (Id. at pp. 1279-1280.) The Authority formed six separate joint powers agencies with other local public agencies to issue revenue bonds.

Powers Agreement.

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...

DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT Set for hearing on Wednesday, September 21, 2016, Line 12, DEFENDANT TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY'S DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT is off calendar at the moving party's request. =(302/HK)...

DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT Set for hearing on Wednesday, October 12, 2016, Line 18, DEFENDANT TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY'S DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT. Defendant Transbay Joint Powers Authority's demurrer to the seventh and eight causes of action in the first amended complaint for nuisance and dangerous condition of public...

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”).