Aids Healthcare Foundation v. Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
197 Cal. App. 4th 693
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Foundation filed mandamus to compel LA County DPH health officer to issue regulatory order requiring condoms and hepatitis B vaccinations in adult film production.
- Health officer duties under Health and Safety Code sections 120175 and 120575 are discretionary, not ministerial.
- LA County porn industry outbreaks include substantial STD/HIV activity from 2004–2008; condoms and vaccination acknowledged as effective by health officer.
- Health officer acknowledged condoms’ effectiveness and vaccination benefits but has not ordered these measures; Department’s actions with CalOSHA and state legislature have been ineffective.
- Trial court sustained demurrer, holding statute-based duties are discretionary and mandamus cannot compel a particular exercise of discretion; petition dismissed.
- Foundation appealed arguing mandatory duty and abuse of discretion; court affirmed dismissal for lack of ministerial duty and lack of alleged abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do §§120175 and 120575 impose ministerial duties subject to mandamus? | Foundation argues mandatory duty to act. | Department argues duties are discretionary. | Discretionary; mandamus cannot compel a specific action. |
| Does Bank of Italy exception apply to compel action despite discretion? | Only reasonable action (condoms/HBV) should be compelled. | Exception not applicable; agency has discretion. | Exception does not apply; cannot compel Foundation’s preferred remedy. |
| Did the petition allege an abuse of discretion through inaction? | Department’s inaction is arbitrary and unreasonable. | Discretion to act was not shown to have been abused. | Petition fails to allege abuse of discretion; cannot compel. |
| Does the Foundation have standing to seek mandamus? | Public right enforcement via mandamus. | Standing lacking or not challenged; but public duty exists. | Foundation has standing to pursue public-duty mandamus. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985) (independent review of mandamus viability; ministerial vs discretionary)
- Santa Clara County Counsel Attys. Assn. v. Woodside, 7 Cal.4th 525 (Cal. 1994) (mandatory vs discretionary duties; ministerial standard)
- Loder v. Municipal Court, 17 Cal.3d 859 (Cal. 1976) (distinguishing ministerial duties from discretion)
- Derrick v. Ontario Community Hospital, 47 Cal.App.3d 145 (Cal. App. 1975) (health officer discretion in public duties)
- Jones v. Czapkay, 182 Cal.App.2d 192 (Cal. App. 1960) (health officer discretion to determine quarantine measures)
- In re Martin, 83 Cal.App.2d 164 (Cal. App. 1948) (quarantine decisions and discretion in public health)
- Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors, 49 Cal.3d 432 (Cal. 1989) (mandamus limitations on compelling discretionary acts)
- Bank of Italy v. Johnson, 200 Cal. 1 (Cal. 1921) (exception to mandamus for only one reasonable conclusion)
- Ballard v. Anderson, 4 Cal.3d 873 (Cal. 1971) (mandamus to compel consideration, not result; discretionary acts)
- Hollman v. Warren, 32 Cal.2d 351 (Cal. 1948) (mandamus scrutiny of discretionary action)
- Betancourt v. Workmen's Comp. App Bd., 16 Cal.App.3d 408 (Cal. App. 1971) (agency discretion; compelled action where no other course)