Castaic Lake Water Agency v. Newhall County Water Dist. CA2/3
238 Cal. App. 4th 1196
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Newhall County Water District posted a March 8, 2013 agenda stating a March 14 closed session: “Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) to discuss potential litigations (2 cases).”
- At the March 14 closed session Newhall authorized filing litigation challenging Castaic Lake Water Agency’s wholesale water rates; Newhall filed suit April 25, 2013.
- Castaic sent a June 21, 2013 demand letter asserting Brown Act violations, arguing Newhall should have cited §54956.9(d)(4) (initiation of litigation) and improperly described/ reported closed-session matters.
- Newhall placed the matter on a July 11, 2013 open-agenda (properly citing §54956.9(d)) and ratified the March 14 decision after public comment.
- Castaic sued for writ of mandate and injunctive relief; trial court granted Newhall’s motion to dismiss under §54960.1(e), finding Newhall cured a technical notice defect and that the March 14 agenda substantially complied with the Brown Act.
- On appeal the court affirmed, holding the March 14 agenda substantially complied despite citing subdivision (c) instead of (d)(4), so no Brown Act violation required reversal or nullification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether March 14, 2013 agenda violated the Brown Act by citing §54956.9(c) instead of §54956.9(d)(4) for anticipated litigation | Castaic: the incorrect citation failed to give required notice of initiation-of-litigation closed session; action is null and void and cannot be cured | Newhall: the agenda nevertheless informed the public of a closed session to discuss two potential lawsuits; substantial compliance; any defect was cured by the July 11 open ratification | Held: No violation — March 14 notice was in substantial compliance; citation error was immaterial and could not have misled the public |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. City of Palmdale, 5 Cal.4th 363 (1993) (discusses Brown Act’s open-meeting purposes)
- Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. Orange County Employees Retirement System, 6 Cal.4th 821 (1993) (Brown Act public-attendance purpose)
- Furtado v. Sierra Community College, 68 Cal.App.4th 876 (1998) (de novo review of Brown Act questions)
- North Pacifica LLC v. California Coastal Com., 166 Cal.App.4th 1416 (2008) (substantial compliance governs open-meeting notice tests)
- Moreno v. City of King, 127 Cal.App.4th 17 (2005) (discussed by parties on curing Brown Act notice defects)