44 Cal.App.5th 804
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Albert Robles simultaneously served as a director of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) (Division 5) and as a Carson city councilmember and mayor; WRD levies annual replenishment assessments that are paid by groundwater producers and passed through to cities and residents.
- The Los Angeles County District Attorney obtained leave from the California Attorney General to sue Robles in quo warranto under Code of Civil Procedure §803, alleging violation of Government Code §1099 (incompatible offices) and sought Robles’s removal from the WRD board.
- The WRD board and Carson city council later adopted a WRD resolution and a Carson ordinance purporting to authorize certain dual officeholding (the Carson ordinance was retroactive and passed with Robles’s deciding vote).
- The trial court found the two offices incompatible because a significant clash of duties or loyalties was possible (notably involving WRD replenishment-assessment decisions affecting Carson), rejected the local authorization defense, and entered judgment removing Robles from the WRD board; Robles appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the removal, holding the DA was a proper relator, the offices were incompatible under §1099’s ‘‘possibility of a significant clash’’ standard, and local acts did not satisfy the statute’s ‘‘compelled or expressly authorized by law’’ exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the County DA may be deputized as a relator under CCP §803 to bring quo warranto | AG authorized DA to sue; §803’s “private party” phrase distinguishes the AG from others but does not exclude public relators | §803 limits relators to private parties; local board (e.g., supervisors) should have used CCP §811 if appropriate | DA proper relator: §803’s “private party” language distinguishes AG but does not bar public entities; precedent supports public relators with AG leave |
| Whether WRD director and Carson mayor/councilmember are incompatible under Gov. Code §1099 (possibility test) | Offices are incompatible because WRD sets assessments affecting Carson; a possible significant clash of duties/loyalties exists (no need to show an actual conflict) | Offices are compatible unless a concrete, repeatable conflict has occurred or is certain to occur | Incompatible: §1099 requires only a possibility of a significant clash; assessment-setting duties create such a possibility |
| Whether local acts (WRD resolution or Carson ordinance) ‘‘compel or expressly authorize by law’’ simultaneous holding under §1099 | Local WRD resolution and Carson ordinance authorized Robles’s dual offices | The statute’s reference to “law” means state law; WRD lacks authority to exempt board members; local acts cannot create a statewide exception | Exception not satisfied: Legislature intended “law” to mean state law and to preclude local ‘‘loopholes’’; WRD resolution and Carson ordinance do not authorize simultaneous offices for §1099 purposes |
| Whether DA’s AG authorization to sue lapsed when Robles began new terms (requiring re-authorization) | AG leave to sue was tied to the specific terms in office; new terms required reapplication | AG leave was properly granted and need not be re-obtained after re-election because the incompatibility was continuous and quo warranto seeks to remedy ongoing unlawful occupation | No reapplication required: quo warranto challenged continuous incompatible occupancy; Thurston (1895) (criminal/penal context) is inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Chapman v. Rapsey, 16 Cal.2d 636 (Cal. 1940) (formulates common-law incompatible-offices principle: incompatibility may be found from possible clashes of duties)
- San Ysidro Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 708 (Cal. 1961) (local bodies may bring quo warranto actions and §811 provides a separate local remedy)
- Rando v. Harris, 228 Cal.App.4th 868 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (discusses quo warranto codified in §803 and its modern scope)
- Water Replenishment Dist. of Southern California v. City of Cerritos, 220 Cal.App.4th 1450 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (example of litigation over WRD replenishment assessments)
- People ex rel. City of Commerce v. Argumedo, 28 Cal.App.5th 274 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (municipal entities seeking AG permission to sue in quo warranto)
- People ex rel. City of Downey v. Downey County Water Dist., 202 Cal.App.2d 786 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962) (Attorney General’s supervisory role over relators in quo warranto)