Olson v. Hornbrook Cmty. Servs. Dist.
245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 236
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Plaintiffs Gifford and Olson sued Hornbrook Community Services District claiming multiple Brown Act violations based on three meetings (Aug 16, 2016; Sept 20, 2016; Jan 24, 2017). Plaintiffs alleged inadequate agenda descriptions and unlawful limits on public comment.
- Aug 2016: agenda listed payment to State Compensation Insurance Fund ($285.75); at the meeting secretary presented a later demand for a different amount and the Board approved payment; plaintiffs sent cure-and-correct notices and sued.
- Sept 2016: consent agenda listed specific bills to approve (did not list an AT&T bill); secretary added an AT&T bill at the meeting and filled in a previously blank payment amount for employee wages; plaintiffs sent cure-and-correct notices and sued.
- Jan 2017: consent agenda described approving bills "received through Jan 24, 2017" without listing individual bills; agenda limited when members of the public could comment on agendized items; plaintiff sued after a cure-and-correct notice.
- Trial court sustained demurrers to all complaints without leave to amend, awarded costs and attorney fees to the District, and plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeal reviewed de novo where facts undisputed and addressed the applicability of substantial-compliance defenses and available remedies under Gov. Code §§54960 and 54960.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether courts may deny relief under §54960.1 when a local agency substantially complied with agenda/notice requirements | Plaintiffs argued the agendas were inadequate and sought nullification under §54960.1 | District argued its agendas substantially complied, which precludes nullification under §54960.1 | Court: Substantial-compliance defense applies to §54960.1 claims; it sustained that defense for Aug and Jan claims but found Sept complaints did state §54960.1 causes of action (demurrers should not have been sustained as to Sept 2016). |
| Whether plaintiff may obtain declaratory/injunctive relief under §54960 when the agency substantially complied | Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief under §54960 for past/ongoing violations even where technical noncompliance was minor | District argued substantial compliance should bar relief under §54960 as well | Court: Substantial compliance does NOT bar §54960 declaratory/injunctive claims; plaintiffs may pursue §54960 relief for actions that differed from what the agenda described (Aug 2016 claim survives as §54960). |
| Adequacy of Aug 2016 agenda description (incorrect payment amount) | Plaintiffs: incorrect amount misled public and thus violated Brown Act | District: agenda gave essential nature (payment to insurer); amount error was technical; substantial compliance | Held: For §54960.1 relief, substantial compliance defeats nullification (no §54960.1 claim). For §54960 declaratory/injunctive relief, alleging the Board took an action different from the noticed action is cognizable — Aug 2016 §54960 claim may proceed. |
| Adequacy of Sept 2016 consent agenda and use of emergency-item exception | Plaintiffs: listing an explicit, limited bill list but then approving an unlisted AT&T bill and filling a blank amount violated the Act | District: either description was sufficient or the Board validly added the AT&T bill under the emergency/need-for-immediate-action vote (§54954.2(b)(2)) | Held: Complaints adequately alleged lack of required agenda description and did not disclose an immediacy determination on the face of the pleadings; §54960.1 claims survive demurrer (trial dismissal reversed). |
| Adequacy of Jan 2017 consent-agenda description and public-comment rule | Gifford: consent description was too vague (should list individual bills); the public-comment restriction was unlawful | District: description reasonably conveyed the essential nature (approve bills received through date); limiting comment timing is a reasonable regulation (§54954.3(b)(1)) | Held: January consent description met §54954.2 standard and did not state a §54960 claim; restrictions on when to comment are reasonable and did not violate §54954.3. Judgment as to merits affirmed except fee award vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Castaic Lake Water Agency v. Newhall County Water Dist., 238 Cal.App.4th 1196 (agency substantially complied when agenda conveyed essential nature despite citation error)
- Chaffee v. San Francisco Library Comm'n, 115 Cal.App.4th 461 (agenda must provide opportunity for general and item-specific public comment)
- Moreno v. City of King, 127 Cal.App.4th 17 (agenda description "public employee (employment contract)" inadequate to notify of dismissal discussion)
- San Diegans for Open Government v. City of Oceanside, 4 Cal.App.5th 637 (substantial-compliance principle; agendas must give public more than clues)
- Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 509 (statutory nullification remedies reflect legislative balance; substantial-compliance limitation discussed under Bagley-Keene)
- San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates v. San Lorenzo Valley USD, 139 Cal.App.4th 1356 (prejudice required to nullify action under §54960.1)
- San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. v. County of Merced, 216 Cal.App.4th 1167 (separate discrete actions must be separately agendized)
- Hernandez v. Town of Apple Valley, 7 Cal.App.5th 194 (agenda inadequate where it omitted a distinct action—adopting an MOU accepting a gift—related to the announced item)