People ex rel. Feuer v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
184 Cal. Rptr. 3d 809
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- The People filed 27 civil actions against 87 defendants (dispensary owners/operators and property owners) seeking permanent injunctions, nuisance abatement, and civil penalties under LAMC, Health and Safety Code, and the UCL.
- The trial court denied the People’s omnibus motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication, ruling penalties were elements of the causes of action, not remedies.
- The People sought mandamus relief; the Supreme Court directed appellate review and remand for merits consistent with the opinion.
- The court clarified penalties are remedies available under the statutes, not elements of the underlying causes of action.
- There were unresolved evidentiary issues before the trial court, which the appellate court acknowledged but did not resolve on appeal.
- The decision centers on statutory interpretation of CCP 437c and the proper role of penalties under Jayhill and primary rights theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are civil penalties elements of the causes of action? | People: penalties are remedies, not elements. | Disputes that penalties are required elements to prevail on each claim. | Penalties are not elements of the causes of action. |
| Can penalties be determined after a favorable summary judgment ruling rather than at the motion stage? | People: post-summary proceedings are feasible for penalties. | Defendants: penalties must be resolved as elements at summary judgment. | Penalties may be determined in a later equity-based proceeding post-judgment, not as elements at the motion stage. |
| Does Jayhill control the characterization of penalties under UCL, LAMC, and NAL? | People rely on Jayhill to permit penalties as remedies, not elements. | Defendants contend Jayhill is inapplicable to these penalties across statutes. | Jayhill applies; penalties are remedies, not elements for UCL, LAMC, or NAL. |
| Is the trial court's reliance on Jayhill improper for the LAMC and NAL claims? | People argue Jayhill governs all related penalties under these statutes. | Defendants contend Jayhill’s reasoning is misapplied. | The court erred in treating penalties as elements; the ruling is reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Jayhill), 9 Cal.3d 283 (1973) (penalties are remedies, not elements of a UCL claim)
- Beronio v. Ventura Co. Lumber Co., 129 Cal. 232 (1900) (primary rights theory: single right may yield multiple remedies)
- Frost v. Witter, 132 Cal. 421 (1901) (distinguishes cause of action from remedy)
- Wulfjen v. Dolton, 24 Cal.2d 891 (1944) (multiple remedies may vindicate a single primary right)
- Crowley v. Katleman, 8 Cal.4th 666 (1994) (one injury may give rise to multiple remedies; not multiple causes of action)