County of San Bernardino v. Super. Ct.
E077884
| Cal. Ct. App. | Apr 27, 2022Background
- RPI (Red Brennan Group and individuals) sought the county-required signature count to qualify a local initiative repealing a fire-protection special tax.
- In August 2019 the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters (ROV) told RPI 26,183 signatures were required; after RPI submitted 32,017 signatures, the ROV in February 2020 calculated the correct requirement as 8,110.
- RPI alleges it incurred over $250,000 collecting unnecessary signatures and sued the County under the California Government Claims Act (Gov. Code §§810 et seq.), asserting (1) liability under Gov. Code §815 for breach of Elections Code §9107 and (2) liability under Gov. Code §815.6 for failure to discharge a mandatory duty under Article XIII C, §3 of the California Constitution.
- The County demurred, arguing (a) no statutory or constitutional duty required it to calculate or disclose the signature number on request before filing, and (b) misrepresentation immunity under Gov. Code §§818.8 and 822.2 bars RPI’s claims.
- The trial court overruled the demurrer. The Court of Appeal granted the County’s writ petition, concluding (1) no statutory or constitutional duty as alleged, and (2) misrepresentation immunity applied; it directed the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Elections Code §9107 imposes a duty to calculate and disclose required signatures on request before petition filing | RPI: §9107 requires the county elections official to ascertain the number of signatures and thus to tell proponents when asked | County: §9107 only prescribes how to calculate signatures and not when or to whom the number must be communicated; no statutory liability arises | Held: §9107 does not impose the alleged duty; no statutory breach alleged — demurrer should have been sustained |
| Whether Article XIII C, §3 (and Elec. Code §9035) create a mandatory duty under Gov. Code §815.6 to ensure local signature requirements match state rules and to inform proponents pre-filing | RPI: the Constitution prohibits higher local signature requirements and thus obligates the County to ensure and disclose the correct number so proponents can exercise initiative power | County: the constitutional provision forbids higher requirements but does not place a pre-filing disclosure duty on the County; §815.6 elements not satisfied | Held: Article XIII C, §3 does not impose the alleged mandatory, protective duty as pleaded; §815.6 claim fails |
| Whether misrepresentation immunity (Gov. Code §§818.8, 822.2) bars RPI’s claims for the County’s miscalculation and communication of the signature number | RPI: the County’s misinformation caused pecuniary loss and is actionable; characterizes claim as negligence or statutory breach not immune | County: statutory immunity shields public entities/employees for misrepresentations unless actual fraud, corruption, or malice are alleged | Held: immunity applies to negligent or erroneous governmental misstatements here; County immune absent allegations of actual fraud/corruption/malice |
Key Cases Cited
- Casterson v. Superior Court, 101 Cal. App. 4th 177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (writ review of demurrer may be appropriate for important legal issues and to obtain final disposition)
- Cochran v. Herzog Engraving Co., 155 Cal. App. 3d 405 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (Government Code §815 limits public entity liability to statutory or constitutional duties)
- Jopson v. Feather River Air Quality Management Dist., 108 Cal. App. 4th 492 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (governmental miscalculations communicated to private parties are barred by misrepresentation immunity)
- Tur v. City of Los Angeles, 51 Cal. App. 4th 897 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (discussing scope of misrepresentation immunity for public entities and employees)
- United States v. Neustadt, 366 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1961) (federal misrepresentation immunity applies where reliance on government information causes pecuniary loss)