The City of Thousand Oaks violated the Ralph M. Brown Act by adopting a CEQA exemption without having listed the exemption as an item on its agenda for at least 72 hours before the meeting. G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks 84 Cal. App. 5th 814 (2022).
Petitioner challenged a decision by the City
In March 2020, as part of a series of emergency measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-29-20, allowing local and state agencies to hold virtual meetings via teleconference and to make meetings accessible electronically notwithstanding the open meeting requirements in the Bagley-Keene Act and the Brown Act. These provisions
Plaintiff’s Brown Act claims were barred because unreasonable delay in prosecuting the lawsuit substantially prejudiced parties and the general public. Julian Volunteer Fire Company Association v. Julian-Cuyamaca Fire Protection District, No. D076639 (4th Dist., March 30, 2021).
The Julian-Cuyamaca Fire Protection District requested the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission to dissolve the District and
Plaintiffs do not have to allege prejudice caused by a violation of the Brown Act’s statutory vote reporting requirement to survive a demurrer, and it is improper to render a case moot by taking judicial notice of only one party’s records at the demurrer phase. New Livable California v. Association of Bay Area Governments,
The City of Lafayette violated the Brown Act by not including a litigation threat discussed in closed session in the agenda packet made publicly available before the meeting, but plaintiffs failed to show any prejudice resulting from the violation. Fowler v. City of Lafayette, 46 Cal. App. 5th 360 (2020).
Homeowners sought approval from the City build a cabaña near a tennis court on their property. Plaintiff neighbors appealed the Planning Commission’s approval to the City Council. During consideration of the appeal, the homeowner’s attorney threatened to sue the City if it denied the project. The City Attorney notified the City Council of the litigation threat orally in a closed session. The threat was not noted in the agenda for any of the public meetings, and there was no mention of it in the information packets made available to the public before the meetings. At its final public meeting, the City Council denied the appeal and upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of the application.
Plaintiffs sued, contending that the City violated the Brown Act by discussing the application in closed hearings, and that plaintiffs were deprived of their right to a fair hearing.
Brown Act Violation
Plaintiffs claimed the City violated the Brown Act by failing to announce or make available for public inspection the litigation threat that served as the basis for closed session discussions. The City argued it was not required to include the litigation threat in the pre-meeting agenda packet because the threat was not distributed in written form to the City Council. The court of appeal rejected this argument, stating that under the Act, the record of a litigation threat to be discussed in closed session must be reduced to writing and included in the agenda packet made available upon request before a meeting. Therefore, the City violated the Brown Act.
Continue Reading Brown Act Violation Did Not Require Nullification of Project Approval Where No Prejudice Was Shown
The court of appeal has overturned a local initiative because the City Council failed to agendize its consideration of Walmart’s offer to fund election costs. The court also determined that the initiative measure did not run afoul of the constitutional prohibition against naming or benefitting a corporation, since it applied to any developer of the
Neighbors who were suing to maintain existing neighborhood parking regulations were pursuing their own personal interests and did not qualify for the public interest exception from the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. Because their Brown Act claim had no merit, it was properly dismissed as an anti-SLAPP suit. Cruz v. City of Culver