GILB v. CHIANG
Filed 7/2/10
CERTIFIED
FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
DAVID A. GILB, as Director,
etc. et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
JOHN CHIANG, as Controller,
etc. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants;
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, etc. et al.,
Interveners and Appellants.
C061947
(Super.
Ct. No. 34200880000026CUWMGDS)
Story continued from part I…..
Thus, we conclude the judgment's first two declarations --
that DPA has authority over the Controller in this regard and that the pay
letter was within its authority -- are not moot.
Even if they were
moot, we would decide them under the mootness
exception for public interest issues.
Thus, â€
| Description | The main issue in this appeal is whether the California Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) has authority to direct the State Controller temporarily to defer paying state employees' salaries (except for federally-mandated minimum wages) when appropriations are unavailable due to the state Legislature's failure to enact a timely state budget. (Gov. Code, § 12440.[1]) Although DPA merely sought to implement a California Supreme Court decision (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528), the Controller disagrees with DPA's interpretation of the judicial opinion. Plaintiffs DPA and its director David A. Gilb (collectively, DPA) sought declaratory and other relief against defendants State Controller John Chiang and the Office of State Controller (collectively, the Controller). Various state employee groups intervened in support of the Controller.[2] Despite †|
| Rating |
