Recently, a Sheriff of the largest County in California appeared in a video supporting a candidate for District Attorney while in uniform.  The candidate is currently the elected City Attorney of the second largest City in the United States.

In general:

No officer or employee of a local agency shall participate in political activities of any kind while in uniform.   Government Code section 3206.

Firefighters, in the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act:

Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 9.5 (commencing with Section 3201), or whenever on duty or in uniform, no firefighter shall be prohibited from engaging, or be coerced or required to engage, in political activity.   Government Code section 3252(a).

Public Safety Officers are specifically mentioned in the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act :

 Except as otherwise provided by law, or whenever on duty or in uniform, no public safety officer shall be prohibited from engaging, or be coerced or required to engage, in political activity. Government Code section 3302(a).

One published case interprets Government Code  section 3206.  That case is California Common Cause v. Duffy (1987) 200 Cal.App.3d 730.    In that case, then-San Diego County Sheriff John F. Duffy was sued by taxpayers for illegal expenditures of public funds and the use of on-duty personnel in political campaigning.  Duffy was distributing post cards that had strong anti-Chief Justice Rose Bird messages.  18,000 postcards were distributed through the San Diego Sheriff’s Department.  Duffy told deputies that they “could distribute the postcards while on duty to citizens who requested them.”   Id. at 739.  At least 25 deputies in uniform participated.  Id.

In addition to the statutory prohibitions found in Government Code section 3206 and 3302, the court noted that the San Diego Sheriff’s Policy Manual prohibited political activities in uniform.  California Common Cause at 746.

More recently, the Stanislaus County Grand Jury found that:

[The] Stanislaus County Sheriff violated California Government Code section 3206 by
attending political functions, while in uniform, on at least two separate occasions.  Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury, Case #11-10C.

 

In a letter to then-Assistant Sheriff of Orange County dated February 21, 2008, a then-Senior Assistant Attorney General and the District Attorney of Orange County opined that while “violation of Government Code section 3206 is not a crime, it is a violation of law that could be the subject of a civil suit or other proceeding against an office holder including and up to removal from office.”  The Assistant Sheriff appeared at a San Clemente City Council meeting in full uniform, including his side arm, on November 20, 2007 and addressed the Council, in the opinion of the attorneys, on political topics.  The strongly worded letter concluded “you are hereby advised and directed to avoid such practices in the future and as interim head of the Sheriff’s Department to ensure that the members of your Department do so as well.”

The certified official results in the General Municipal Election for City of San Bernardino City Clerk are that Gigi Hanna has won by three votes:

From the San Bernardino Registrar of Voters:

There is also an automatic manual recount established by Election Code section 15360.  By law, a random sample of ballots from every election must be recounted manually to verify the computer count.  A minimum of one percent of all votes cast is included in the process.  This must occur before the election is certified.  The automatic manual recount is open to the public.  A court explained it like this:

“1 percent manual tally” is a procedure used in California to test whether there are any discrepancies between the electronic record generated by a voting machine and what is essentially a manual audit of that electronic record. Essentially, after each election, the “official conducting the election” is to conduct a “public manual tally of the ballots tabulated” by any voting machines “cast in 1 percent of the precincts chosen at random by the elections official.” (§ 15360.)  Nguyen v. Nguyen (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1636, 1643.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

California Elections Code section 15620 et seq. governs recounts requested by voters.  Any voter may file a request for a recount pursuant to Elections Code section 15620.

As discussed before, the recount is done publicly.  California Elections Code section 15629. The voter requesting the recount should request all ballots and other relevant material (which in the case of the San Bernardino City Clerk’s election, should include the voter envelopes that were not signed and the ballots not counted, in case there is a court challenge about whether the ballots were validly voted under California law).  Elections Code section 15630 says:

All ballots, whether voted or not, and any other relevant material, may be examined as part of any recount if the voter filing the declaration requesting the recount so requests. No examination of any ballot shall include touching or handling the ballot without the express consent of the elections official or the election officer supervising the special recount board. No ballot may be touched or handled during the examination unless the elections official or the elections officer supervising the special recount is present to observe the examination. Except as provided in this section no ballot shall be touched or handled by any person during the recount unless that person is the elections official, a person acting at the direction of the elections official, a member of the special recount board, or by order of the superior court.

The observers can challenge a ballot using the procedure found in Elections Code section 15631:

On recount, ballots may be challenged for incompleteness, ambiguity, or other defects, in accordance with the following procedure:

(a) The person challenging the ballot shall state the reason for the challenge.

(b) The official counting the ballot shall count it as he or she believes proper and then set it aside with a notation as to how it was counted.

(c) The elections official shall, before the recount is completed, determine whether the challenge is to be allowed. The decision of the elections official is final.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

The semi-official results in yesterday’s General Municipal Election for City of San Bernardino City Clerk are that Gigi Hanna won by two votes:

Close elections sometimes involve recounts. It can involve a closer look to see if ballots were correctly counted by machines and if any votes counted were illegal or improperly voted.

California Elections Code section 15620 et seq. governs recounts requested by voters.  Any voter may file a request for a recount pursuant to Elections Code section 15620.  The request must be filed no later than five days after the completion of the official canvass.  The completion of the canvass occurs when the elections official signs the Certification of  Election Results.  Elections Code section 15620.

The request must be in writing, specify the contest to be recounted, and state on behalf of which candidate (in this case), slate of electors, or position on a measure it is filed.  Elections Code section 15620.  The request may specify the order in which precincts shall be recounted, it may specify the method of counting to be used, and any other relevant material to be examined.  Elections Code sections 15622, 15627, 15630.

If it is not a statewide measure, as this is not, the request needs to be filed with the county election official responsible for conducting the election.  However, the request needs to be filed with the City Clerk if it is a city election or if the city has not consolidated with the County.  Elections Code section 15620.

The election official will post a notice stating the date and place of the recount at least one day before the recount, and the candidates will be notified by overnight mail or personally.  Elections Code section 15628.

A recount is open to the public, and must start no later than seven days following the receipt of the request and shall be continued daily, except for Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays, for no less than six hours a day until completed.  Elections Code sections 15626, 15629.  A manual recount must be conducted under the supervision of the election official by recount boards, (each consisting of four San Bernardino County voters), appointed by the election official.  Elections Code section 15625.  Every vote in every precinct must be recounted, or the results are null and void, and if a different candidate wins, the results of the official canvass will be changed.  Elections Code section 15632.  A copy of the results shall be posted conspicuously in the office of the election official.  Elections Code section 15633.

There is a cost associated with a recount, and the amount for this San Bernardino City Clerk General Municipal Election recount, should it occur, will depend on a variety of factors.  The election official determines the amount of the deposit necessary to cover the costs of the recount for each day.  The voter filling the request must deposit, before the start of the recount and at the beginning of each day , the amounts to cover the cost of each day.  If the results are reversed, the deposit must be returned.  Elections Code section 15624.

How much will the recount be, if one is requested?  San Bernardino County does not give the typical fees, but some other California Counties do (information was obtained from the Internet and is not necessarily reliable or up-to-date:

Santa Cruz:

COST BREAKDOWN FOR MANUAL TALLY:

• 1 Board $240 – Supervisor Pay $325 – Cost per day $565
• 2 Boards $480 – Supervisor Pay $500 – Cost per day $980
• 3 Boards $720 – Supervisor Pay $675 – Cost per day $1395

Sutter:

COST AND PAYMENT
Manual Tally Recount Fees
Number of Boards Fee Per Day
1 $969.00
2 $1,674.00
3 $2,379.00

Other Costs
Item Fee
Legal Notices Actual Cost
Security Actual Cost
Computer Support $106.00/hr
Materials Actual Cost
Copy Charges Per Code/Resolution
Postage Actual Cost
County Counsel $112.00/hr
Accounting $56.57/hr

There is also an automatic manual recount established by Election Code section 15360.  By law, a random sample of ballots from every election must be recounted manually to verify the computer count.  A minimum of one percent of all votes cast is included in the process.  This must occur before the election is certified.  The automatic manual recount is open to the public.  A court explained it like this:

“1 percent manual tally” is a procedure used in California to test whether there are any discrepancies between the electronic record generated by a voting machine and what is essentially a manual audit of that electronic record. Essentially, after each election, the “official conducting the election” is to conduct a “public manual tally of the ballots tabulated” by any voting machines “cast in 1 percent of the precincts chosen at random by the elections official.” (§ 15360.)  Nguyen v. Nguyen (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1636, 1643.

There are court challenges available after the recount, but since the recount in this case is mere speculation, they will be discussed at a later time.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Here is the election post about today’s General Municipal Election over at sbdpolitics.com.  This post is about the history of the San Bernardino Charter regarding primary and general elections.

The Charter of the City of San Bernardino created San Bernardino’s Primary Municipal and General Municipal Elections.

A primary election shall be held in said City on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of each odd numbered year, for the nomination of candidates to be elected at the ensuing general election, and a general election shall be held in said City on the first Tuesday in May of each odd numbered year, for the election of City officers. Beginning with the primary election in 1995, and thereafter a primary election shall be held in said City on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in each odd numbered year for the nomination of candidates to be elected at the ensuing general election, and a general election shall be held in said City on the first Tuesday in February of the following even numbered year for the election of City Officers. Said election shall be conducted in the manner provided for by general law; provided, however, that the Mayor and Common Council shall have power, by ordinance, to provide for the manner of holding such election.  Charter of the City of San Bernardino section 10.

However, if someone wins a majority of votes in the Primary Municipal Election, then there is no need for a General Municipal Election:

Any candidate for any City office who at a primary election shall receive votes on a majority of all the ballots cast for candidates for the office for which such candidates seek nomination, shall be elected to such office. Where two or more candidates are to be elected to a given office and a greater number of candidates receive a majority than the number to be elected, those candidates shall be elected who secure the highest votes of those receiving such majority, and equal in number to the number to be elected. Any officer elected shall hold office until his or her successor is elected and qualifies.  Charter of the City of San Bernardino section 10A.

That is why candidates were elected at the Primary Municipal Election on November 8, 2011.  The original section 10 of the 1905 Charter read:

 The provisions of all general laws governing elections for state and county officers, not inconsistent with the provisions of this charter, are hereby adopted as the laws governing city elections for city officers, and the provisions of all laws governing general or special elections in municipalities applicable to all municipalities of the state, or to municipalities of the fifth class, and not inconsistent with the provisions of this charter, are hereby adopted as the laws governing all general or special elections held within the city, and in all elections the mayor and common council and the city clerk respectively shall exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred or imposed by law on boards of supervisors and county clerks concerning elections.

Even though there was no reference to a primary nominating election, there was one in existing state law, and there were primary elections before the 1935 adoption of the new section 10.  I have information from one such election in which the candidates actually ran on a partisan ticket to be nominated in the general election.

This section was repealed in 1921 by the voters of San Bernardino.  The a version of the current section 10 was adopted by the voters on April 8, 1935:

Section 10: A primary election shall be held in said City on the third Monday in March  of each odd numbered year, for the nomination of candidates to be elected at the ensuing general election, and a general election shall be held in said City on the second Monday in April of each odd numbered year, for the election of City officers. Said election shall be conducted in the manner provided for by general law; provided, however, that the Mayor and Common Council shall have power, by Ordinance, to provide for the manner of holding such election.

Charter section 10 was next amended in 1949 to read:

Section 10. A primary election shall be held in said City on the Third Tuesday in March of each odd numbered year, for the nomination of candidates to be elected at the ensuing general election, and a general election shall be held in said City on the Second Tuesday in April of each odd numbered year, for the Election of City Officers. Said election shall be conducted in the manner provided for by general law; provided, however, that the Mayor and Common Council shall have power, by ordinance, to provide for the manner of holding such election.

The next Charter election held on March 20, 1951 added section 10A, though not in the modern form:

Any candidate for a judicial, school, or any City office who at a primary election shall receive votes on a majority of all the ballots cast for candidates for the office for which such candidate seeks nomination, shall be elected to such office. Where two or more candidates are to be elected to a given office and a greater number of candidates receive a majority than the number to be elected, those candidates shall be elected who secure the highest votes of those receiving such majority, and equal in number to the number to be elected.

In 1966, section 10 was amended again:

Section 10. A primary election shall be held in said City on the first Tuesday in February of each odd numbered year, for the nomination of candidates to be elected at the ensuing general election, and a general election shall be held in said City on the Second Tuesday in April of each odd numbered year, for the Election of City Officers. Said election shall be conducted in the manner provided for by general law; provided, however, that the Mayor and Common Council shall have power, by ordinance, to provide for the manner of holding such election.

In the event any amendment to the Charter involving an election is ratified by the electorate and its approval by the Legislature is not reasonably anticipated to occur before the ninety (90) day period preceding such election, the Mayor and Common Council by ordinance may authorize the necessary election process and procedures to commence, change and establish the boundaries of existing and future wards and authorize related acts in preparation for the election; and such ordinances or acts will be effective and operate retrospectively, cured, ratified and validated, provided the approval of such amendment by the Legislature occurs before said election.

Section 10 was amended on June 4, 1974, and I believe it amended the section to delete the second paragraph added in 1966, and change the primary to March and the  general election to May:

Section 10. Primary and General Election. A Primary election shall be held in said  City on the first Tuesday after the first  Monday in March of each odd numbered year for the nomination of candidates to be  elected at the ensuing general election and a general election shall be held in said City on the first Tuesday in May of each odd numbered year, for the election of City Officers. Said election shall be conducted in the manner provided for by general law; provided, however, that the Mayor and Common Council shall have power by ordinance to provide for the manner of holding such election.

Section 10 was amended for on June 2, 1992 to read (which was readopted by voters in November 2004):

Section 10. Primary and General Election. A Primary election shall be held in said  City on the first Tuesday after the first  Monday in March of each odd numbered year for the nomination of candidates to be  elected at the ensuing general election and a general election shall be held in said City on the first Tuesday in May of each odd numbered year, for the election of City Officers. Beginning with the primary election in 1995, and thereafter, a primary election shall be held in said City on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in each odd numbered year for the nomination of candidates to be elected at the ensuing general election, and a general election shall be held in said City on the first Tuesday in February of the following even numbered year for the election of City Officers. Said election shall be conducted in the manner provided for by general law; provided, however, that the Mayor and Common Council shall have power by ordinance to provide for the manner of holding such election.

Section 10A was also amended on June 2, 1992:

Any candidate for a judicial, school or any City office who at a primary election shall receive votes on a majority of all the ballots cast for candidates for the office for which such candidate seeks nomination, shall be elected to such office. Where two or more candidates are to be elected to a given office and a greater number of candidates receive a majority than the number to be elected, those candidates shall be elected who secure the highest votes of those receiving such majority, and equal in number to the number to be elected.  Any officer elected shall hold office until his successor is elected and qualifies.

Section 10A was changed when the new Charter was adopted in 2004 to clean up the language regarding judicial and school election, and to put in gender neutral language in the last sentence.  However, the second line about “Where two or more candidates are to be elected to a given office and a greater number of candidates receive a majority” no longer makes sense because no City office allows more than one office holder.  It referred to the school board election, but the amendment deleted a reference to that language.  It could be useful if a “pick two” or “pick four” office is added to the Charter, but as it is currently written, it is anachronistic.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

In 2011, I wrote two pieces on codification of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, and an update on the situation.

From the second piece:

To recap, The Mayor and Common Council, at their November 7, 2011 meeting, passed Resolution 2011-299 Authorizing the issuance of a Request for Proposals for Municipal Code Codification Services.  The staff report to the Resolution painted this unflattering picture of how behind the City is in codification:

Table 1.1 Code Supplement Distribution History from 2008 through 2011

Time Period	Distribution Date	Note
1/2008 to 3/31/2008	4/2008	on schedule
4/2008 to 6/30/2008	7/2008	on schedule
7/2008 to 9/30/2008	11/2008	1 month behind schedule
10/2008 to 12/31/2008	9/2009	8 months behind schedule
1/2009 to 3/31/2009	9/2009	5 months behind schedule
4/2009 to 6/30/2009	9/2009	2 months behind schedule
7/2009 to 9/30/2009	10/2009	on schedule
10/2009 to 12/31/2009	1/2010	on schedule
1/2010 to 3/31/2010	3/23/2010	1 week ahead of schedule
4/2010 to 6/30/2010	2/2011	7 months behind schedule
7/2010 to 9/30/2010	2/2011	4 months behind schedule
10/2010 to 12/31/2010	Not yet distributed	9 months behind schedule
1/2011 to 3/31/2011	Not yet distributed	6 months behind schedule
4/2011 to 6/30/2011	Not yet distributed	3 months behind schedule
7/2011 to 9/30/2011	Not yet distributed	Due this month

What that means is that it is difficult for the lay observer and the outside professional to find out the state of the law.

The Mayor and Common Council will consider, at the February 7, 2012 meeting, awarding  the Code Publishing, Inc. of Seattle, Washington.  However, in the staff report and the resolution, you can see tension between the City Attorney’s Office and the City Manager’s Office:

Proposals were then evaluated by a selection committee comprised of City staff representing the City Clerk’s and City Manager’s offices, Public Works, Information Technology, and Community Development departments. The City Attorney’s Office was invited to participate and identified a representative from their office to take part in this process. The representative was present during one of the presentations; however, the City Attorney’s Office was unable to attend the other presentations and did not participate in the evaluation process.  [Emphasis added]

The selection committee recommends that Code Publishing, Inc., be awarded the contract. While all of the codification companies are qualified to provide the needed services, Code Publishing, Inc., received the highest ranking scores based on their flexible pricing, customer service-oriented approach, quality of electronic publishing and internet services, and legal publishing expertise.

. . .

Recodification and the regular distribution of supplement materials is a necessary undertaking to maintain transparency of the City’s Code. It is the City’s responsibility to maintain its laws in a current and comprehensive format. When the Code contains conflicts or discrepancies and outdated or incorrect references it cannot be an effective tool for residents and enforcement officials to follow and enforce the laws with consistency and accuracy. Moreover, the public, including property and business owners and developers, are poorly served by not having access to updated codes in order to assess information necessary when, for example, applying for business registrations, building permits, or planning new development options.

Outsourcing codification services is a standard practiced by most California cities. A recent survey conducted by staff shows that 91 percent of California cities outsource codification services. Of the 362 cities governed by general law, 332 or 92 percent of cities outsource codification services. Of the 120 charter cities in California, 105 or 88 percent of cities outsource codification services. Within the group of charter cities, 9 or 82 percent of the 11 charter cities that elect a city attorney outsource codification services. [Emphasis added]

By outsourcing services, the City will be able to promptly provide subscribers with quarterly supplements while reducing the time the City Attorney’s and Clerk’s offices and the Planning Division devote to codifying, indexing, proofreading, publishing, and distributing activities. While the City Attorney’s Office is responsible for drafting proposed ordinances and resolutions, the Planning Division is responsible for updating changes to the Development Code (Title 19). Title 19 is one of the most dynamic sections of the Code with the largest number of annual amendments (20 amendments in three years).

The mostly unexecuted version of the resolution says “decline to sign” and the initials “JFP.” City Attorney James F. Penman has declined to approve the resolution as to form.  From time to time, the City Attorney does not sign resolutions or agreements.  The reasons he declined to do might be found by examining the minutes and video of the November 7, 2011 Council Meeting.

Video on the discussion surrounding the item is available on the City’s website, and the item is about at the 3:37:00 mark. For context, the meeting was the day before the Primary Municipal Election. City Attorney Penman said that the first he heard about it was when it appeared on the agenda.  He said the situation was low priority and created by Council not fully funding the City Attorney’s Office, because the Legal Secretary II responsible has been taken off codification and placed on litigation.  He took issue with the cost of $40,000, and said it could be done for $10,000 using a part-time legal secretary without benefits.

Council member McCammack said that City Manager McNeely’s staff had politicized the issue.  She also said that it was more important to pay the $40,000 in defending the liability cases.

Council member Marquez asked about other cities contract with vendors, and City Clerk Rachel Clark said that the Clerk’s Office did a survey but that she didn’t have the numbers with her at the Council Meeting.

Council Member Jenkins said that the money could be better used on potholes, trimming trees or broken street lights.

Council member Kelley had concerns that sending out the RFP would start an unavoidable path to paying for outside codification.

City Attorney Penman said that the biggest request was to annotate the code and Charter with case law, and the codification company would charge extra. City Attorney Penman said that they were ahead of schedule a year before, but that staff had been taken off of it, and that it was not high priority.

Mayor Morris said that the City Attorney’s Office would be part of the RFP process.

Council member McCammack asked which staff would be involved with the codifier to make sure the codifier was making accurate changes to the code.  City Manager McNeely said that the City Attorney and City Manager and City Clerk’s Office would be involved, and that mostly the City Clerk’s Office would be involved.

City Clerk Clark highlighted the times that the City Attorney’s Office was late in the quarterly updates, but when confronted said that it had been on time before the highlighted period.  She also said that it was during Tom Minor’s administration that it came in-house.  Council member McCammack said the item was a political ploy to embarrass the City Attorney’s Office.
The first public speaker said that it was difficult to find the code online, particularly related to code enforcement.  The second speaker was then-City Clerk candidate Esther Jimenez discussed an issue regarding a proposed tobacco ordinance in the past which wasn’t really related to the discussion (and City Attorney Penman disputed her view of the events).
City Attorney Penman disputed the part of the RFP that there was a need to make corrective measures to the existing code, and he said that Council had blocked some moves already proposed by the City Attorney’s Office, and that his Office didn’t have the resources to make the needed changes.  City Attorney Penman said that all hands were defending lawsuits so that no one could participate in the selection process.

The Common Council voted on strictly partisan lines.  According to the minutes of November 7, 2011, Resolution 2011-299 was passed on a 4 to 3 vote with Council members Virginia Marquez (1st Ward), Tobin Brinker (2nd Ward), Fred Shorett (4th Ward) and Rikke Van Johnson (6th Ward) in favor; Robert Jenkins (2nd Ward), Chas Kelley (5th Ward) and Wendy McCammack (7th Ward) opposed.
Update:  The Common Council voted 5-2 (Shorett and Johnson opposed) to continue the item to March 19, 2012, where, given the new majority will most likely be defeated, if it even comes to a vote.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

People are searching the Internet for a definitive list of City Attorneys in San Bernardino County and the Inland Empire.   Here is the information, which is current as of today (2/1/2012)  to the best of my knowledge.  Please note that I am not the City Attorney nor the Assistant City Attorney for any of these cities.

City of Adelanto:

Todd Litfin

Rutan & Tucker LLP

611 Anton Blvd. #1400

Costa Mesa, CA  92626

Town of Apple Valley:

John E. Brown

Best Best & Krieger LLP

3500 Porsche Way, Suite 200

Ontario, CA 91764

City of Barstow:

Teresa Highsmith (Interim City Attorney)

Colantuono & Levin

300 S. Grand Ave. Ste 2700

Los Angeles CA 90071

City of Big Bear Lake:

Stephen Dietsch

Best Best & Krieger LLP

3500 Porsche Way, Suite 200

Ontario CA 91764

City of Chino:

Jimmy L. Gutierrez

12616 Central Ave
Chino, CA 91710

City of Chino Hills:

Mark D. Hensley

Jenkins & Hogin LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Ave #110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266

City of Colton:

Dean Derleth

Best Best & Krieger LLP
300 S Grand Ave 25th FL
Los Angeles, CA 90071

City of Fontana:

Clark Alsop

Best Best & Krieger LLP

3500 Porsche Way, Suite 200

Ontario, CA 91764

City of Grand Terrace:

Richard L. Adams, II

Jones & Mayer

3777 N. Harbor Blvd.

Fullerton CA 92835

City of Hesperia:

Eric Dunn

Aleshire & Wynder LLP
18881 Von Karman Ave #400
Irvine, CA 92612

City of Highland:

Craig Steele

Richards Watson & Gershon

355 S. Grand Ave., 40th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101

City of Loma Linda:

Richard E.  Holdaway

Robbins & Holdaway
201 W “F” St
Ontario, CA 91762

City of Montclair:

Diane E. Robbins

Robbins & Holdaway
201 W “F” St
Ontario, CA 91762

City of Needles:

John Pinkney

Slovak, Baron & Empey LLP
1800 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262

City of Ontario:

John E. Brown

Best Best & Krieger LLP

3500 Porsche Way, Suite 200

Ontario, CA 91764

City of Rancho Cucamonga:

James L. Markman

Richards Watson & Gershon
P O Box 1059
Brea, CA 92822-1059

City of Redlands:

Daniel J. McHugh

P.O. Box 3005

Redlands, CA 92373

City of Rialto:

Jimmy L. Gutierrez

12616 Central Ave
Chino, CA 91710

City of San Bernardino:

James F. Penman

300 North D Street

Sixth Floor

San Bernardino, CA 92418

City of Twentynine Palms:

Patrick Munoz

Rutan & Tucker

P.O. Box 1950

Costa Mesa, CA 92628-9990

City of Upland:

William P. Curley III

Richards Watson & Gershon
P O Box 1059
Brea, CA 92822-1059

City of Victorville:

Andre de Bortnowsky

Green, de Bortnowsky & Quintanilla

23801 Calabasas Rd. #1015

Calabasas, CA 91302-1595

City of Yucaipa:

David Snow (Interim City Attorney)

Richards Watson & Gershon

355 S. Grand Ave., 40th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101

Town of Yucca Valley:

Lona Laymon

Aleshire & Wynder LLP
18881 Von Karman Ave #400
Irvine, CA 92612

Copyright 2012 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

On January 22, 2012, the Los Angeles Times published a spreadsheet showing the amounts paid by (or collected in some rare cases) by the City of Los Angeles related to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD).  The numbers are fascinating, and no doubt required a great deal of clerical work either by the employees of the Los Angeles Times, or by the employees of the City of Los Angeles.  This is a good illustration of the benefits of the California Public Records Act.

The cases run the gamut from minor traffic accidents to wrongful death suits to disability payouts to Federal civil rights cases, and even dangerous condition of public property.  I have a perspective on this data because I am a plaintiff’s attorney, both in the personal injury and the 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 civil rights arenas, and because I defended cities and police officers for about ten years, first as a Deputy City Attorney and then as as an Assistant City Attorney.

The information regarding the car accidents is not surprising.  In an accompanying article, reporter Joel Rubin writes:

The city has paid nearly $24 million in settlements or verdicts in about 400 LAPD traffic-related lawsuits over the last nine years and must contend with dozens more cases that remain unresolved, city records show. In all but a few of the closed cases, city officials opted to pay a negotiated settlement instead of taking their chances at a trial — a strong indication that the officers were in the wrong.

However, other interesting information can be gleaned from the data: the City of Los Angeles does not try as many cases as you would think for a City of that size or a City Attorney’s Office of that size.  I counted only 25 trials out of 921 cases with a listed disposition.   On the other hand, there were not that many outright $0 verdicts or settlements, 16 by my count.

Thirteen of those are what I would characterize as alleged Federal Civil Rights allegations: 4 were listed as Dismissal-Court, which I would take to mean a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.    There are 4 voluntary dismissals, though it is not clear if that means that there was a dismissal with a waiver of costs and a release, or whether the cases listed as Settlement (three cases).  Only one of the civil rights cases was listed as won on Summary Judgment.  One case does not give information about how the City of Los Angeles was not liable.

Federal Civil Rights cases are very fact dependent, so looking at the raw statistics without more information (the alleged conduct, the case number, stage of disposition), for example.

This is good investigative journalism by the Los Angeles Times.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Computation of time is very important in any California lawsuit.  Litigants, attorneys and support staff should be aware of how to calendar important dates and deadlines.   The answer can generally be found in the California Code of Civil Procedure section 12, Computation of Time.  That section reads, as of the date of this post:

“The time in which any act provided by law is to be done is computed by excluding the first day, and including the last, unless the last day is a holiday, and then it is also excluded.”   This section is probably going to stay in effect for awhile, it was originally enacted 140 years ago  in 1872.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 12 is modified by section 12a, which was added in 1933, and as of this writing, last amended in 2007.  It reads, as of the date of this post:

(a) if the last day for the performance of any act provided or required by law to be performed with a specified period of time is a holiday, then that period is hereby extended to and including the next day that is not a holiday.  For purposes of this section, “holiday” means all day on Saturdays, all holidays specified in Section 135 and, to the extent proved in Section 12b, all days that by terms of Section 12b are required to be considered as holidays.

(b) This section applies to Sections 659, 659a, and 921, and to all other provisions of law providing or requiring an act to be performed on a particular day or within a specified period of time, whether expressed in this or any other code or statute, ordinance, rule, or regulation.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 135 reads, as of the date of this post:

   Every full day designated as a holiday by Section 6700 of the Government Code, including that Thursday of November declared by the President to be Thanksgiving Day, is a judicial holiday, except September 9, known as “Admission Day,” and any other day appointed by the President, but not by the Governor, for a public fast, thanksgiving, or holiday.  If a judicial holiday falls on Saturday or Sunday, the Judicial Council may designate an alternative day for observance of the holiday.  Every Saturday and the day after Thanksgiving Day is a judicial holiday.  Officers and employees of the courts shall observe only the judicial holidays established pursuant to this section.

This section was added in 1985, and last amended in 2001.  Government Code section 6700 reads, as of the date of this post:

The holidays in this state are:

(a) Every Sunday.

(b) January 1st.

(c) The third Monday in January, known as “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.”

(d) February 12th, known as “Lincoln Day.”

(e) The third Monday in February.

(f) March 31st known as “Cesar Chavez Day.”

(g) The last Monday in May.

(h) July 4th.

(i) The first Monday in September.

(j) September 9th, known as “Admission Day.”

(k) The second Monday in October, known as “Columbus Day.”

(l) November 11th, known as “Veterans Day.”

(m) December 25th.

(n) Good Friday from 12 noon until 3 p.m.

(o) Every day appointed by the President or Governor for a public fast, thanksgiving, or holiday.

Except for the Thursday in November appointed as Thanksgiving Day, this subdivision and subdivisions (c) and (f) shall not apply to a city, county, or district unless made applicable by charter, or by ordinance or resolution of the governing body thereof.

If the provisions of this section are in conflict with the provisions of a memorandum of understanding reached pursuant to Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 3560) of Division 4 of Title 1, the memorandum of understanding shall be controlling without further legislative action, except that if those provisions of a memorandum of understanding require the expenditure of funds, the provisions shall not become effective unless approved by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act

California Code of Civil Procedure sections 659 and 659a pertain to motions for new trials, and section 921 has to do with continuance of an attachment after an appeal by levying party.

The computation of time continues with California Code of Civil Procedure section 12b, which reads as of the date of this posting:

If any city, county, state or public office, other than a branch office, is closed for the whole of any day, insofar as the business of that office is concerned, that day shall be considered as a holiday for the purposes of computing time under Sections 12 and 12a.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 12b was added by the legislature in 1951.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 12c reads, at the time of this posting:

(a) Where any law requires an act to be performed no later than a specified number of days before a hearing date, the last day to perform that act shall be determined by counting backward form the hearing date, excluding the day of the hearing as provided in Section 12.

(b) Any additional days added to the specified number of days because of a particular method of service shall be computed by counting backward form the day determined in accordance with subdivision (a).

This section was added by the statutes of 2010, A.B. 2119.  I was curious to see the legislative history of this bill.  It was introduced on February 18, 2010 by Assemblymember Van Tran, a Republican from Orange County.  The bill, as introduced, is exactly as shown in the chaptered version shown above.  According to a biography I found online, he was the managing partner of a law firm before being elected to the Assembly.

No votes were cast against A.B. 2119.  The bill was sponsored by the State Bar of California Committee on Administration of Justice.   The bill was supported by the California Judges Association CompuLaw, LLC, Consumer Attorneys of California, the Judicial Council of California, and the San Francisco Association for Docket Calendar & Court Services.

Why was this law needed?  According to the Senate Committee Analysis dated June 9, 2010:

California law provides deadlines for notice to be given of hearings on certain motions and deadlines for service and filing of motions, oppositions, and replies thereon. Prior to 2004, the Code of Civil Procedure calculated by calendar days the service of specified moving, supporting, and opposing papers regarding motions and other hearings, the deadline for the completion of discovery proceedings prior to trial, and the deadline for a demand for the exchange of information concerning expert witnesses prior to trial. AB 3078 (Assembly Judiciary Committee, Chapter 171, Statutes of 2004) and AB 3081 (Committee on Judiciary, Chapter 182, Statutes of 2004), among other things, revised those deadlines by referring to court days rather than calendar days. This bill would further clarify the method for calculating these deadlines by providing that they would be calculated by counting backward from the date of the scheduled hearing and would exclude the hearing date.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

The San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters has the Voter Pamphlet online, including candidate statements, a copy of the ballot showing ballot position, voting instructions and a letter from San Bernardino City Clerk Rachel Clark.  The materials are in English and Spanish.

The General Municipal Election is the run-off from the Primary Municipal Election held in November 2011.  The top two candidates were Amelia Sanchez Lopez and Georgeann “Gigi” Hanna, and they are the only candidates in this race.  This is an all mail-in election, and the votes must be received by February 7, 2012.

For more coverage of the San Bernardino General Municipal election, go to sbdpolitics.com.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.