102 Cal.App.5th 602
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background
- The City of Palo Alto faced a financial crisis and sought to amend its charter to repeal binding interest arbitration for public safety unions, submitting Measure D to voters without first consulting with unions as required by the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA).
- Measure D passed in 2011, repealing the binding arbitration provision. The firefighters' union (IAFF Local 1319) contested the action, leading to administrative and judicial proceedings which found the city had violated the MMBA by failing to consult in good faith.
- The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) concluded the city’s actions violated the MMBA and ordered the city’s resolution void, seeking to restore the "status quo ante."
- The city did not restore the prior charter provision. Local 1319, with the Attorney General's authorization, pursued a quo warranto action to invalidate Measure D.
- The trial court agreed the city violated the MMBA but declined to invalidate Measure D, imposing intermediate remedies. Local 1319 appealed.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion by not invalidating Measure D and restoring the pre-amendment charter provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court must invalidate Measure D after finding unlawful exercise of franchise in quo warranto | Invalidation is the only legally proper remedy under quo warranto statutes and PERB’s directives. | Court has discretion for remedy; exclusion/invalidation not mandatory for "unlawful exercise." | Court held invalidation required to restore status quo ante; trial court abused discretion. |
| Deference to PERB’s determination of remedy | Courts should defer to PERB’s finding restoring status quo is necessary. | PERB order plus good faith consultation sufficient; further remedy unnecessary. | Court found insufficient deference to PERB—restoring status quo ante was necessary. |
| Effect of the voters’ will in passing Measure D | Procedural error in placement renders voter will irrelevant—measure was unlawfully submitted. | Overwhelming voter approval should not be undone by procedural violation alone. | Court held that voter approval cannot ratify procedurally unlawful measures. |
| Trial court discretion in fashioning quo warranto relief | No discretion; exclusion/invalidation is required upon finding an unlawful exercise. | Discretion exists; can issue tailored remedies for unlawful exercise of franchise. | Appellate court disagreed; on these facts, invalidation is required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Voters for Responsible Retirement v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal.4th 765 (MMBA procedures are a matter of statewide concern and preempt contradictory local rules)
- People ex rel. Seal Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Seal Beach, 36 Cal.3d 591 (charter cities must comply with MMBA process requirements; process is a statewide concern)
- Pulskamp v. Martinez, 2 Cal.App.4th 854 (elections based on procedural defects cannot be ratified by voters)
- Vernon Fire Fighters v. City of Vernon, 107 Cal.App.3d 802 (unilateral changes by employer are per se MMBA violations and must be set aside)
- International Assn. of Firefighters, Local 1319 v. City of Palo Alto, 5 Cal.App.5th 1271 (finding City’s failure to consult in good faith violated MMBA, setting stage for current dispute)