Burke v. Ipsen
117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 91
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- ADDA is a nonprofit mutual benefit union for Los Angeles County deputy district attorneys; its 1998 bylaws governed elections and terms.
- In Oct 2008, the ADDA amended bylaws to extend officer terms and permit higher dues; the amendments were adopted by ballot on Oct 18, 2008.
- Burke, a grade IV deputy, filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the elections and the amended bylaws on Corp. Code and bylaw grounds.
- Trial court granted relief, directing an election under 1998 bylaws, invalidating the amended bylaws, and later awarded Burke attorney fees under CCP 1021.5.
- ADDA appealed, arguing Burke should have exhausted administrative remedies and challenging the attorney fee award; Burke cross-appealed for appellate fees on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was required | Burke: no exhaustion because issue concerns internal union affairs not subject to Commission. | ADDA: exhaustion required since rights derive from the Ordinance and Commission has authority. | No exhaustion required; internal union matters with no substantial employer impact fall outside Commission authority. |
| Whether Burke, as a ‘confidential employee,’ had standing | Burke: standing as union member despite confidential status because he paid dues and sought by petition. | ADDA: confidential status prevents union membership and standing. | Burke had standing; confidential status does not bar membership in the union for purposes of the petition. |
| Whether CCP 1021.5 attorney fees were appropriate | Burke: fees warranted due to public-interest-like relief benefiting many members. | ADDA: fees improper or should be offset by union's bargaining interests. | Factors satisfied; court affirmed attorney fees under private attorney general doctrine. |
| Whether Burke's sanctions motion on appeal was proper | Burke sought sanctions for frivolous appeal. | ADDA contends appeal lacked merit due to misapplication of law. | Sanctions denied; appeal not frivolous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal.3d 65 (1990) (exhaustion doctrine; agency expertise maximization)
- Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd., 35 Cal.4th 1072 (2005) (exhaustion exceptions; agency lacks jurisdiction when issue is internal)
- Anderson v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Com., 229 Cal.App.3d 817 (1991) (administrative remedies not required where case concerns employee relations and union discipline)