45 Cal.App.5th 624
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Atwell Island Water District (AIWD) is governed by a five-member board; a factional dispute arose after a special all-mail election scheduled for January 17, 2017.
- Milton Pace and Nathan Cameron submitted candidacies, were certified after the January 17, 2017 mailed-ballot election, and were seated January 26, 2017; the seated board voted to retain Herr, Pedersen & Berglund as counsel.
- Opposing directors (Donald and Deanna Jackson and Matthew Hurley) challenged the election and subsequent retention, moved to strike AIWD’s answer and cross-complaint filed by Leonard Herr on the ground Herr was not authorized because the retention occurred without a lawful quorum and in violation of the Brown Act.
- The trial court granted the motion to strike without leave to amend, apparently relying on declarations and pleadings outside the face of AIWD’s filings; AIWD appealed asserting the court improperly considered extraneous evidence and abused its discretion by denying leave to amend.
- The Court of Appeal held the trial court abused its discretion by considering impermissible extraneous documents and declarations, but affirmed the order because the January 17, 2017 election was void as held the day after a state holiday (so Pace and Cameron were not duly elected), making the retention of counsel unauthorized and the pleadings incurably defective.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant (Mitchell faction) | Respondent (Jacksons/Hurley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could rely on declarations and the contents/truth of other court filings when ruling on a motion to strike | Court limited to face of the pleadings; extraneous evidence cannot be used | The court may consider such submissions and take judicial notice of filings in its file | Court abused discretion by relying on Gosling’s declaration and on the truth of other pleadings (impermissible fact‑finding by judicial notice) |
| Whether Herr was authorized to file pleadings for AIWD because his retention was approved by a valid board quorum | The retention was valid; Herr had authority to sign/file | Retention was invalid because it was not approved by a lawful majority (no quorum) | Ultimately, counsel was not authorized because the underlying election was void and no lawful quorum existed |
| Validity of the January 17, 2017 all‑mail election (date issue) | Election was valid as held | Election violated Elections Code because it was held the day after a state holiday | Election was void under Elections Code §1100 (elections may not be held the day before, of, or after a state holiday) |
| Whether leave to amend should have been granted after the motion to strike | Leave to amend should be permitted | Pleadings are incurable because they rest on the void election date | Leave to amend properly denied; defect was incurable because the pleadings allege the election date that renders the claim void |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court, 218 Cal.App.4th 96 (2013) (abuse of discretion review and limits on discretionary rulings)
- In re Shannon M., 221 Cal.App.4th 282 (2013) (abuse of discretion where court misapplies law)
- Barri v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 28 Cal.App.5th 428 (2018) (judicial notice may not be used to establish truth of hearsay statements in court files)
- Daniels v. Tergeson, 211 Cal.App.3d 1204 (1989) (time/place requirements for elections are mandatory; violations render elections void)
- Roberts v. City of Palmdale, 5 Cal.4th 363 (1993) (Brown Act definition of a "meeting" and requirement that a majority be present)
- Cates v. California Gambling Control Com., 154 Cal.App.4th 1302 (2007) (appellate courts review rulings, not the trial court’s rationale)