CA Pub. Decisions

Language in voter pamphlet summary of proposition approved by voters, contrary to language in ordinance by which proposition was placed on ballot, is entitled to no weight in interpreting ordinance. Public bodies may submit bond propositions in broad and general terms, and when such propositions are approved, body is not limited to any specific means of obtaining result.

Where city gave police officer timely notice of proposed suspension but did not notify officer until after limitations period had expired that it was also considering reduction in pay grade, such reduction was untimely under Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act.

Aa decision regarding injuries allegedly suffered as a result of asbestos exposure submitted in a bankruptcy proceedings.

As an alternative to removing the child from the physical custody of his or her parent and placing the child in the foster-care system, section 360 and California Rules of Court, rule 1456(b)[2] authorize the juvenile court at the disposition hearing to appoint a legal guardian if the parent has advised the court he or she does not wish to receive family maintenance or family reunification services and agrees to the guardianship and the court finds, after consideration of all of the evidence, including a review of the proposed guardian's criminal history, that the guardianship is in the child's best interests.

Where former county employees elected deferred retirement; county's retirement law did not give them right to make any further elections that would be afforded to other county employees after their departure; subsequent change in county's retirement law rendered former employees' positions eligible for more generous retirement benefits; and new law said that qualifying employees could elect to have their service prior to new law be treated prospectively as safety service but did not authorize benefit eligibility of deferred members to be determined by changes made after their deferred retirement, trial court properly granted county's motion for summary judgment in suit alleging that county improperly failed to calculate deferred retirement benefits in accordance with new law.

Where former county employees elected deferred retirement; county's retirement law did not give them right to make any further elections that would be afforded to other county employees after their departure; subsequent change in county's retirement law rendered former employees' positions eligible for more generous retirement benefits; and new law said that qualifying employees could elect to have their service prior to new law be treated prospectively as safety service but did not authorize benefit eligibility of deferred members to be determined by changes made after their deferred retirement, trial court properly granted county's motion for summary judgment in suit alleging that county improperly failed to calculate deferred retirement benefits in accordance with new law.

School district's decision to close schools was categorically exempt from review under California Environmental Quality Act where closings would not cause new schools to add more than 10 new classrooms or increase student populations by more than 25 percent, and where evidence presented by opponents of closure did not support claim that unusual circumstances existed so as to take the decision out of the categorical exemption. School district did not violate state law by using voter-authorized construction bond funds to pay salaries and associated training costs for personnel involved in construction project, to pay printing costs and attorney fees in connection with the preparation of the bonds, to pay for deferred maintenance and repair of septic system on campus, or to pay for demographic and geo-coding studies, consultants, mold reports, a CEQA study, and moving and leasing of portable classrooms in connection with school closures. With respect to cause of action for violation of California Public Records Act, trial court properly excluded testimony regarding CPRA request made by witness who was not a plaintiff and not, at the time the request was made, a member of the organizational plaintiff. Provisions of the Education Code that mandate community involvement in decisions involving school closures and the use of surplus property do not dictate that any particular type of information be provided to members of advisory committee appointed under those provisions. It is sufficient that district make a good faith attempt to provide committee with information that is complete and accurate, and any deficiency in providing information will not be deemed a statutory violation absent showing of prejudice. Claim that district violated public participation statutes applicable to sale, rental, or lease of surplus property by declaring property surplus rather than allowing committee to make that decision and by failing to include representatives from all of the groups listed in statute on the committee was not ripe where district had not yet proposed to sell, rent, or lease the property.

Standard form CGL policy that included absolute pollution exclusion did not provide coverage for response costs incurred pursuant to an administrative order that charged insureds with being suspected dischargers of pollutants causing damage to soil and groundwater. Phrase "ultimate net loss," used in reference to what amount the insurer will pay after the insurer becomes obligated to pay rather than as a trigger of the insurer's obligation to pay, does not broaden coverage beyond damages as defined elsewhere in policy. Insurer has no duty to defend affirmative defenses raised by parties sued by insured.

School district's decision to close schools was categorically exempt from review under California Environmental Quality Act where closings would not cause new schools to add more than 10 new classrooms or increase student populations by more than 25 percent, and where evidence presented by opponents of closure did not support claim that unusual circumstances existed so as to take the decision out of the categorical exemption. School district did not violate state law by using voter-authorized construction bond funds to pay salaries and associated training costs for personnel involved in construction project, to pay printing costs and attorney fees in connection with the preparation of the bonds, to pay for deferred maintenance and repair of septic system on campus, or to pay for demographic and geo-coding studies, consultants, mold reports, a CEQA study, and moving and leasing of portable classrooms in connection with school closures. With respect to cause of action for violation of California Public Records Act, trial court properly excluded testimony regarding CPRA request made by witness who was not a plaintiff and not, at the time the request was made, a member of the organizational plaintiff. Provisions of the Education Code that mandate community involvement in decisions involving school closures and the use of surplus property do not dictate that any particular type of information be provided to members of advisory committee appointed under those provisions. It is sufficient that district make a good faith attempt to provide committee with information that is complete and accurate, and any deficiency in providing information will not be deemed a statutory violation absent showing of prejudice. Claim that district violated public participation statutes applicable to sale, rental, or lease of surplus property by declaring property surplus rather than allowing committee to make that decision and by failing to include representatives from all of the groups listed in statute on the committee was not ripe where district had not yet proposed to sell, rent, or lease the property.

School district's decision to close schools was categorically exempt from review under California Environmental Quality Act where closings would not cause new schools to add more than 10 new classrooms or increase student populations by more than 25 percent, and where evidence presented by opponents of closure did not support claim that unusual circumstances existed so as to take the decision out of the categorical exemption. School district did not violate state law by using voter-authorized construction bond funds to pay salaries and associated training costs for personnel involved in construction project, to pay printing costs and attorney fees in connection with the preparation of the bonds, to pay for deferred maintenance and repair of septic system on campus, or to pay for demographic and geo-coding studies, consultants, mold reports, a CEQA study, and moving and leasing of portable classrooms in connection with school closures. With respect to cause of action for violation of California Public Records Act, trial court properly excluded testimony regarding CPRA request made by witness who was not a plaintiff and not, at the time the request was made, a member of the organizational plaintiff. Provisions of the Education Code that mandate community involvement in decisions involving school closures and the use of surplus property do not dictate that any particular type of information be provided to members of advisory committee appointed under those provisions. It is sufficient that district make a good faith attempt to provide committee with information that is complete and accurate, and any deficiency in providing information will not be deemed a statutory violation absent showing of prejudice. Claim that district violated public participation statutes applicable to sale, rental, or lease of surplus property by declaring property surplus rather than allowing committee to make that decision and by failing to include representatives from all of the groups listed in statute on the committee was not ripe where district had not yet proposed to sell, rent, or lease the property.

School district's decision to close schools was categorically exempt from review under California Environmental Quality Act where closings would not cause new schools to add more than 10 new classrooms or increase student populations by more than 25 percent, and where evidence presented by opponents of closure did not support claim that unusual circumstances existed so as to take the decision out of the categorical exemption. School district did not violate state law by using voter-authorized construction bond funds to pay salaries and associated training costs for personnel involved in construction project, to pay printing costs and attorney fees in connection with the preparation of the bonds, to pay for deferred maintenance and repair of septic system on campus, or to pay for demographic and geo-coding studies, consultants, mold reports, a CEQA study, and moving and leasing of portable classrooms in connection with school closures. With respect to cause of action for violation of California Public Records Act, trial court properly excluded testimony regarding CPRA request made by witness who was not a plaintiff and not, at the time the request was made, a member of the organizational plaintiff. Provisions of the Education Code that mandate community involvement in decisions involving school closures and the use of surplus property do not dictate that any particular type of information be provided to members of advisory committee appointed under those provisions. It is sufficient that district make a good faith attempt to provide committee with information that is complete and accurate, and any deficiency in providing information will not be deemed a statutory violation absent showing of prejudice. Claim that district violated public participation statutes applicable to sale, rental, or lease of surplus property by declaring property surplus rather than allowing committee to make that decision and by failing to include representatives from all of the groups listed in statute on the committee was not ripe where district had not yet proposed to sell, rent, or lease the property.

In action alleging that persons unknown caused wrongful publication of plaintiff's secret plans on the Internet, trial court's denial of protective orders sought by publishers of news Web sites where information appeared and e-mail provider for site after they had been subpoenaed was error because (1) the subpoena to the e-mail service provider cannot be enforced consistent with the plain terms of the federal Stored Communications Act; (2) any subpoenas seeking unpublished information from publishers would be unenforceable through contempt proceedings in light of the California reporter's shield; and (3) discovery of publishers' sources is also barred by the conditional constitutional privilege against compulsory disclosure of confidential sources.

In action alleging that persons unknown caused wrongful publication of plaintiff's secret plans on the Internet, trial court's denial of protective orders sought by publishers of news Web sites where information appeared and e-mail provider for site after they had been subpoenaed was error because (1) the subpoena to the e-mail service provider cannot be enforced consistent with the plain terms of the federal Stored Communications Act; (2) any subpoenas seeking unpublished information from publishers would be unenforceable through contempt proceedings in light of the California reporter's shield; and (3) discovery of publishers' sources is also barred by the conditional constitutional privilege against compulsory disclosure of confidential sources.

In action alleging that persons unknown caused wrongful publication of plaintiff's secret plans on the Internet, trial court's denial of protective orders sought by publishers of news Web sites where information appeared and e-mail provider for site after they had been subpoenaed was error because (1) the subpoena to the e-mail service provider cannot be enforced consistent with the plain terms of the federal Stored Communications Act; (2) any subpoenas seeking unpublished information from publishers would be unenforceable through contempt proceedings in light of the California reporter's shield; and (3) discovery of publishers' sources is also barred by the conditional constitutional privilege against compulsory disclosure of confidential sources.