What is the Brown Act?

Useful Rulings on Right to Participate (Brown Act)

Recent Rulings on Right to Participate (Brown Act)

RONALD GREEN VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS ET AL

The Brown Act, Government Code sections 54950, et seq. Requires all meetings of a legislative body to be open and public. Government Code section 54956.9, subdivision (a) merely provides an exception to this general rule and permits to hold closed sessions to confer and obtain legal advise regarding pending litigation in certain contexts. Subdivision (b) abrogates the lawyer-client privilege for purposes of Chapter 9. Subdivision (c) defines “litigation.” Subdivision (d) defines “pending litigation.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

RONALD GREEN VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS ET AL

The Brown Act, Government Code sections 54950, et seq. Requires all meetings of a legislative body to be open and public. Government Code section 54956.9, subdivision (a) merely provides an exception to this general rule and permits to hold closed sessions to confer and obtain legal advise regarding pending litigation in certain contexts. Subdivision (b) abrogates the lawyer-client privilege for purposes of Chapter 9. Subdivision (c) defines “litigation.” Subdivision (d) defines “pending litigation.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

GARY WRIGHT VS. BIOPRODUCTION GROUP, INC. A CALFORNIA CORPORATION

Dist. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 672, 689 [block billing made it "virtually impossible" to separate out compensable Brown Act violation work from other work].) A trial court may make a reasonable fee award using block-billed time entries where it is in a position to determine whether the tasks described reasonably required the total amount of time billed. (See Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor America (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 99, 102-103.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Enforcement

ERIC PREVEN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Brown Act, Gov. Code section 54950 et seq. (the “Brown Act”) against Respondents City of Los Angeles and City of Los Angeles City Counsel (“Respondents”). The operative Firs Amended Petition alleges a single remaining cause of action under the Brown Act. On October 25, 2017, the Court sustained Respondent’s demurrer to the petition without leave. Petitioner made a timely appeal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

BEHZAD FORAT ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

On February 6, 2019, Forat filed an Opening Brief re: Violation of Brown Act. On May 28, 2019, the Court denied Forat’s Petition for Writ of Mandate. The Court’s ruling was as follows: “The Petition’s Brown Act and declaratory relief claims are denied. The court previously sustained the demurrer to the first cause of action for writ of mandate without leave to amend. The court also previously stayed the Petition’s second, third and fifth causes of action.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BULLOCK VS. CITY OF ANTIOCH

Plaintiffs argue the labor unions’ obligation under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act to represent employees in their respective bargaining units ends when those employees retire. (See Allied Chem. & Alkali Workers, Local Union No. 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. (1971) 404 U.S. 157, 165.) Here, Local 3 did not legally represent Plaintiffs in those proceedings, having no written agreement to do so, and no duty under the current MOU. Local 3 had no standing to represent the “then-retired-Plaintiffs” in 2017.

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

GREATER SGV SAFE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION VS CITY OF EL MONTE, ET AL.

Second, Petitioner has failed to substantiate a Brown Act violation. Government Code section 54956(a), a provision of the Brown Act, states that a city may call a special meeting by delivering written notice “at least 24 hours before the time of the meeting.” Because Petitioner acknowledges that the City gave the public 24 hours’ notice of the special meeting (FAP ¶ 50), no Brown Act violation occurred. B.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CALIFORNIA STATE PARK PEACE OFFICER MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

Finally, the State notes that EEBR uses language that is similar to that used in the Brown Act. The Brown Act granted employees the right to join employee organizations, and required public employers to “meet and confer” with employee organizations prior to undertaking action on “matters relating to employment conditions and employer-employee relations.” (Pacific Legal Foundation, supra, 29 Cal.3d at 176 [quoting Brown Act].)

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

CALIFORNIA STATE PARK PEACE OFFICER MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

Finally, the State notes that EEBR uses language that is similar to that used in the Brown Act. The Brown Act granted employees the right to join employee organizations, and required public employers to "meet and confer" with employee organizations prior to undertaking action on "matters relating to employment conditions and employer-employee relations." {Pacific Legal Foundation, supra, 29 Cal.3d at 176 [quoting Brown Act].)

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT VS. RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF

In the demurrer, Respondents contend that the Brown Act claim is moot with respect to the Ordinance. (Dem. 8-10.) Respondents do not otherwise challenge the sufficiency of the Brown Act allegations as to the Ordinance. While the court would tend to agree that the Brown Act claim is moot with respect to a writ cause of action directed to repeal or non-enforcement of the Ordinance, the court need not resolve the mootness argument as it would not dispose of the entire first cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

NOWICKI VS. CCC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION

On the other hand, Petitioner argues that even if there were Brown Act violations, it would not be a proper basis for CCCERA’s action. The Brown Act sets forth the express remedies for violation of its provisions, which CCCERA failed to follow. Also, CCCERA’s action was untimely; violation of the Brown Act requires action within six months. Here, the Brown Act violations are cited as indicators of improper conduct on the part of Petitioner leading up to his retirement.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

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

Violations of the law do not make an otherwise not public entity subject to the Brown Act. 2. UTLA is a Private Entity Not Subject to the Brown Act UTLA argues that it is not a proper respondent because the Brown Act, with a few inapplicable exceptions, only applies to public entities. No authority holds that a public employee union such as UTLA is subject to the Brown Act. Dem. at 9-10. Corn does not dispute that the Brown Act only applies to public entities or argue that an exception applies to UTLA.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DAVID GUERRERO VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

He notes that an employee is entitled to union representation under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act where “significant purpose of [a] meeting is to obtain facts to support disciplinary action that is probable or that is being seriously considered.” Alfred M. Lewis, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., (9th Cir. 1978) 587 F.2d 403, 410. Reply at 9. Guerrero’s union rights are irrelevant. He failed to report the incident; he was not asked to meet with an investigator to discuss the incident.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

EDWARD G. EVERETT, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

PERB noted that Social Services involved a wage deduction reimbursing a county for premium increases in employee health insurance coverage while negotiations were pending under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act over those premium increases. Ex. A, p. 5. After the board of supervisors decided that the employees should repay the county for the 14 months of premium increases, the union challenged the monthly repayment deductions. Ex. A, p. 5.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DODD V. AFFORDABLE COMMUNITY LIVING CORPORATION 10:00 A.M.

Brown Act . . . and, thus, is not subject to the . . .” CPRA. (Respondent’s Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate (Opposition) filed on 10-15-19 under ROA No. 106; 5:4-6.) Thus, the issue is whether Respondent is a local agency within the meaning of Government Code sections 6252, subdivision (a), and 54952, subdivisions (c) and (d).

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2020

BULLOCK VS. CITY OF ANTIOCH

Plaintiffs argue the labor unions’ obligation under the Meyers-Melias-Brown Act to represent employees in their respective bargaining units ends when those employees retire. (See Allied Chem. & Alkali Workers of Am., Local Union No. 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Chem. Div. (1971) 404 U.S. 157, 165.) Local 3 did not have standing to adjudicate the already-retired Plaintiffs’ claims. Retirees are not employees within the meaning of section 8 (a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2020

LUKE V. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Brown Act by denying him the right to comment for more than three minutes on an agenda item at the October 3, 2017 public meeting of the Board. Luke seeks declaratory relief. Petitioner’s Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses Petitioner moves to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, requests 1 through 15 and Special Interrogatories 1 through 44[1].

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2019

  • Judge

    Jennifer V

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

PAINTED CAVE COMMITTEE FOR FIRE AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY VS BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PAINTED CAVE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT

PCVFD points out that the Legislature has expressly provided that other agencies are subject to the Brown Act. But those statutes were enacted after the Brown Act was added in 1953.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2019

PAINTED CAVE COMMITTEE FOR FIRE AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY VS BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PAINTED CAVE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT

Nature of Proceedings: Preliminary Injunction to Enforce Brown Act Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2019

JAMES GRAHAM VS ANTELOPE VALLEY NISSAN INC

Forat alleges that the May 2016 Action did not cure the Brown Act violations at the April 2016 Action. (Compl. ¶24.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2019

FIGHT BACK VENICE! VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

I, section 3(b) was adopted in Prop 59 and intended to constitutionalize access to public records under the California Public Records Act and open meeting laws like the Brown Act. See BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court, (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742, 750-51. Reply at 7. AB 1197 does nothing to impinge on the ability to access government information; its effect is to negate any requirement that the City create CEQA information for the two ordinances.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

THOMPSON VS. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK

Petitioner argues that this was a Brown Act violation, however, her papers do not sufficiently discuss the Brown Act or explain how this memorandum was a violation. Petitioner includes an unsigned declaration from attorney Bradley Sullivan. This declaration states that the memorandum is a violation of the Brown Act. Assuming this declaration was signed, it would be insufficient to convince the Court that there was in fact a Brown Act violation.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2019

SCOTT FISCH VS COVINA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Brown Act, Title 5 California Code of Regulations section 80303, a lawfully issued subpoena, or in the event legal proceedings are commenced to enforce any obligations of a party hereto.” Prior to his resignation, Plaintiff was a permanent certificated employee of the District, serving as a High School Counselor, which is a position that requires a credential issued by the CTC. (Id., ¶¶3-4, Exh. 7 [RFA No. 17] and 8 [Plaintiff’s response to RFA No. 17].)

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2019

JULIAN-CUYAMACA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

On April 6, 2019, the District adopted a resolution to cure and correct the alleged Brown Act violations by rescinding actions taken on February 13, 2018, March 13, 2018 and April 10, 2018, including Resolution 2018-03 to dissolve the District. However, the District still has not shown that it complied with the Brown Act by noticing the hearing and posting the agenda for the hearing to cure and correct. (See, Gov. Code §§ 54954(a), 54952(a)(1), 54960.1(b); Boyle v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PETITION OF HAROLD MICHAEL DENARDI

"Of course the intent of the Brown Act cannot be avoided by subterfuge; a concerted plan to engage in collective deliberation on public business through a series of letters or telephone calls passing from one member of the governing body to the next would violate the open meeting requirement." (Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1993) 5 Cal.4th 363, 376.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

1 2 3 4 5 6 7     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.