What is the Brown Act?

Useful Rulings on Right to Participate (Brown Act)

Recent Rulings on Right to Participate (Brown Act)

PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY NOW VS. POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

PUSD specifically excluded the alleged Brown Act violations in its reply. (Reply, 2:26-3:2.) PUSD has not shown that it will suffer prejudice at this time. The court is interested in the parties responding to the following questions: Who was the negotiators? Were agents for Brookfield Residential Property, Cambridge School Property and Costco representatives at the closed meetings?

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY NOW VS. POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

PUSD specifically excluded the alleged Brown Act violations in its reply. (Reply, 2:26-3:2.) PUSD has not shown that it will suffer prejudice at this time. The court is interested in the parties responding to the following questions: Who was the negotiators? Were agents for Brookfield Residential Property, Cambridge School Property and Costco representatives at the closed meetings?

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

KEVIN HUNT VS CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

Defendant has admittedly taken the position that its extension of Plaintiff’s employment contract at the meeting of the Board held on May 28, 2019 violated two discrete provisions in the Brown Act (Government Code section 53262 and/or 54953(c)(3)). Defendant indeed argues that the action was void due to those violations.

  • Hearing

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND ITS CITY COUNCIL

The Verified Complaint in Quo Warranto filed September 27, 2019 is an action pursuant to CCP § 803 challenging the City's placement of Proposition B on the ballot [pension reform approved by the voters and added to the Charter effective July 20, 2012] without bargaining as required under the Meyer' Milias-Brown Act [MMBA] [Gov. Code §§ 3500 et.seq.], thus rendering the charter amendment invalid.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KARINA JACOBO VS CHILDREN'S DENTAL SURGERY CENTER ET AL.

Brown Act because Bloss is a public entity, Bloss/US Dental should also get the protections under the Government Claims Act because Bloss is a public entity. Yet, they provide no authority to support this conclusion. With regard to Defendants’ argument that “given the broad definition of public entity under the … Act, there is no reason to believe that the legislature intended to exclude a public-private partnership which functions as a public entity from the … Act” (Defs.

  • Hearing

CITY OF INDUSTRY VS BETTY T. YEE, ET AL.

The first amended complaint asserts five causes of action for (1) Private Attorney General Action/Representative Action; (2) Conflict of Interest; (3) Brown Act; (4) Criminal Enterprise/RICO; and (5) Injunctive Relief. The lawsuit seeks to prohibit certain City officials from “further participation in decisions of the City.”

  • Hearing

LINDA WILKINSON VS DON KENDRICK, ET AL.

Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to judgment on her first cause of action for violation of the Brown Act because it is undisputed that City contacted Gendreau and persuaded him to abandon Plaintiff’s Property without consulting Plaintiff. (Motion, 6-8.)

  • Hearing

OAKLAND PRIVACY, ET AL. V. CITY OF VALLEJO

Brown Act. The petition is granted.

  • Hearing

CITY OF COMMERCE, ET AL. VS CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, A SPECIAL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Government Code[2] Section 54960.5 A court may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to Section 54960, 54960.1, or 54960.2 where it is found that a legislative body of the local agency has violated the Brown Act. An award for attorneys’ fees under the Brown Act is discretionary, not mandatory, and is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court. Frazer v. Dixon Unified School Dist., (“Frazer”) (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 781, 800.

  • Hearing

MANN VS MORENO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Brown Act: The Ralph M. Brown Act, Govt. Code § 54950, et. seq., (the “Brown Act”) was enacted to facilitate public participation in all phases of local government decision-making and to curb misuse of democratic process by secret legislation by public bodies. (Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Bd. of Supr. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 41, 50.)

  • Hearing

IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT VS. RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF

However, it would be pure speculation to infer from the emails that County Counsel acted as an intermediary between Supervisors in violation of the Brown Act. Extra-record discovery cannot be a mere fishing expedition into speculative theories. (Pomona Valley, supra at 102.) For the reasons discussed above, RFPs 10 and 11 are speculative fishing expeditions for Petitioner’s Brown Act claim. Petitioner provides no argument that RFPs 10 and 11 are relevant to their claim under Civil Code section 2773.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SACRAMENTO CITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION VS. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES

The Association argues that its claims of “agency misconduct” or Brown Act violations are the claim—it is not seeking judicial review of whether the resolutions are supported by substantial evidence, but that it seeks review of a ministerial decision, whether or not the School Board complied with the Brown Act. The Court finds that the Association has sufficiently alleged “agency misconduct” to support limited discovery at to Mike Fine only.

  • Hearing

SACRAMENTO CITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION VS. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Board complied with the Brown Act.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    STEVEN M. G E V E R C E R

  • County

    Sacramento County, CA

GERALD CORN VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

The Court granted Plaintiff’s oral request for leave to amend his pleading and granted Plaintiff 30 days leave to file an amended complaint to add damages claims, noting Plaintiff “may allege new claims other than a Brown Act Claim.” (2/25/20 Minute Order.) The Court instructed Plaintiff to file the amended Pleading in Department 85 and, once filed, noted the matter would be transferred for Department One for reassignment to an independent calendar court for resolution of the damages claim.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On or about October 29, 2019, Petitioner participated in a court process in Los Angeles Superior Court regarding alleged Brown Act violations of LAUSD and United Teachers of Los Angeles (“UTLA”) in case number 19STCP02426. (FAP pp. 2, 6.) On or about November 12 and 20, 2019, Samuel sent Petitioner inter-office correspondence scheduling a conference to discuss his “excessive absences.” (FAP p. 2, Exh. 5.) Petitioner received counseling memoranda from Samuel dated December 11, 2019. (Id. p. 4, Exh. ZZ.)

  • Hearing

PETITION OF HAROLD MICHAEL DENARDI

Recovery of attorney's fees as to the Brown Act claim is not statutorily allowed, unless inextricably intertwined with the other cause of action, making apportionment impractical or impossible. Respondent's counsel has provided declarations to indicate approximately 38 hours of attorney time at an hourly rate of $375 was incurred as to the Brown Act claim ($14,250). The Court finds a multiplier is not warranted in this case.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN ET AL. VS SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1021

., the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, Gov. Code §§ 3500-3511). (City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (2010) 49 Cal.4th 597, 603.) Even where a complaint fails to mention the MMBA in any respect, “what matters is whether the underlying conduct on which the suit is based – however described in the complaint – may fall within PERB’s exclusive jurisdiction.” (El Rancho Unified Sch. Dist. V. National Educ. Assn. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 946, 954, fn. 13.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

MIGUEL A ORTEGA, ET AL. VS DEAN LOGAN, , IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACTY AS LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY

Analysis Petitioners’ Labor Law Claims In their opening writ brief, Petitioners contend that the County’s Employee Relations Ordinance (“ERO”) and the state Meyers-Milius-Brown Act (“MMBA”) required the Board to meet and confer in good faith with labor organizations prior to placing the Proposed Charter Amendment on the ballot. (Opening Brief (OB) 11.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITY OF COMMERCE, ET AL. VS CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, A SPECIAL DISTRICT, ET AL.

terminated; (c) the District has become uninsurable from other sources; (d) employees of the District have been harassed and intimidated by Board members, particularly Directors Vasquez and Camacho-Rodriguez; (e) Board oversight of routine financial transactions by approval of warrant registers has been abandoned; the District’s budget process for the 2020-21 fiscal year has been delayed; (f) the Public Integrity Division of the District Attorney’s office has written a letter to the Board demanding it cure Brown

  • Hearing

KURT WILSON ET AL. VS CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF STOCKTON ET AL.

Plaintiff’s Petition Briefing and Defendant’s Second Demurrer On June 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate under the Brown Act (the “Petition Brief”) and requested a hearing date on the Brown Act Petition only. Plaintiff has presented no legal authority for such a filing or for hearing the Brown Act Petition separately from his other claims.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

JOHNSON VS. CITY OF COSTA MESA

“Under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Gov.Code, §§ 3500–3510), local governments are authorized to meet and confer with their employees' authorized bargaining representative regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and to enter into and approve written memoranda of understanding to memorialize their agreements. … ‘the entire import of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act is to permit as much flexibility in employee-governmental agency relations with regard to all aspects in the employer-employee

  • Hearing

WASTE MANAGEMENT COLLECTION & RECYCLING INC VS CITY OF IRWIN

(See Oppo. 13-14, citing AR 204.)[2] In 2017, Remy Moose Manley also submitted letters on behalf of WMCRI and, separately, Azusa Land Reclamation, Inc. and USA Waste of California, Inc.[3] with respect to alleged Brown Act violations committed by Irwindale related to its CEQA review of the Project. (AR 11676-78; 11681-699.) Has WMCRI Satisfied Its Burden of Proof as to the Financial Burden Prong of CCP Section 1021.5?

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

KRAMER VS. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

The proposed Amended Petition also adds this alleged Brown Act violation to the existing Brown Act violation paragraph. (¶ 39 in the original Petition and ¶ 47 in the proposed Amended Petition). Petitioner argues that the January 21, 2020 closed session was unlawful because the County was not a party to the 3060 proceeding.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

OTTO L. HASELHOFF, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE OTTO AND LARA HASELHOFF FAMILY TRUST DATED JULY 27, 2006, AND AS ASSIGNEE OF GREG BRILES INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARTNER AND/OR TRUSTEE VS CITY OF SANTA MONICA, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY

“Damages…are not among the remedies provided by law for a violation of the Brown Act (§§ 54960, 54960.1, 54960.5), and to the extent costs and fees are available to successful Brown Act litigants, the Brown Act specifically provides that those costs and fees will not be borne personally by government officials or employees. (§ 54960.5.)” Holbrook v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BURNLEY V ERB

Brown Act, Gov.Code, § 54950 et seq.) Both statutory schemes mandate open governance meetings, with notice, agenda and minutes requirements, and strictly limit closed executive sessions. (See, e.g., Civ.Code, § 1363.05, subd. (b).) ¶ The Board here played a critical role in making and enforcing rules affecting the daily lives of Ocean Hills residents.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.