29 Cal.App.5th 486
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2015 Governor Brown called a special legislative session to address improvements to the health care system, cost reduction, and related matters; during that session the Legislature enacted the End of Life Option Act (EOLOA), legalizing physician-assisted death for terminally ill Californians.
- EOLOA sets detailed eligibility, procedural safeguards (attending and consulting physician review, mental health assessments, waiting periods, written and witnessed requests), immunities for participating physicians, and conscience protections for nonparticipating providers.
- Six physicians and the American Academy of Medical Ethics (the Ahn parties) sued the Riverside County District Attorney seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging due process, equal protection, and that the Legislature exceeded its special-session authority under Cal. Const. art. IV, § 3(b).
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for the Ahn parties and enjoined enforcement of EOLOA as beyond the scope of the special-session proclamation. The State (Attorney General and others) sought writ relief in the Court of Appeal and obtained a temporary stay.
- The Court of Appeal held the Ahn parties had not adequately pleaded standing (personal, third-party, associative, or public-interest), vacated the judgment on the pleadings and directed the superior court to reopen the matter; because standing was lacking, the court declined to reach the constitutional merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge EOLOA | Ahn: physicians and their association sufficiently alleged injury (regulated practice, harms to patients, inability of terminal patients to litigate) and may assert third-party or public-interest standing | State: plaintiffs failed to plead concrete, particularized injury; alleged harms are hypothetical or attenuated; statutory conscience protections undermine plaintiffs’ alleged injury | Court: Ahn parties failed to adequately plead standing; judgment on the pleadings was improper given State denials; remand to allow pleading/evidence on standing (did not reach constitutionality) |
| Whether writ review appropriate | Ahn: not directly argued; public importance implies expedited review | State: sought writ because issue is of great public importance and urgency | Court: exercised discretion to review by writ due to public importance and time sensitivity of terminal patients |
| Whether EOLOA was beyond special-session proclamation (article IV, § 3(b)) | Ahn: special session was limited to health-care funding; EOLOA does not concern funding and thus exceeded scope | State: proclamation’s language was broad (improve health-care system, reduce costs, improve health) and EOLOA is germane to health care delivery and patient health | Court: declined to decide on merits because plaintiffs lacked standing; remanded for further proceedings; concurrence/dissent argued EOLOA is reasonably germane to proclamation and should be upheld |
| Availability of public-interest or mandate-type standing | Ahn: public-interest standing is available to enforce public duties and vindicate public rights | State: public-interest standing limited; mandate requires ministerial duty and DA’s prosecutorial discretion is not ministerial | Court: public-interest standing in mandate is limited and inapplicable here (petition did not allege ministerial duty of DA); plaintiffs did not plead a viable mandate claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Riley, 20 Cal.2d 28 (Cal. 1942) (deference to legislative determination that subject is germane to a special-session proclamation)
- Teal v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 595 (Cal. 2014) (standing requires concrete, particularized beneficial interest)
- Weatherford v. City of San Rafael, 2 Cal.5th 1241 (Cal. 2017) (California standing doctrine allows flexibility but recognizes limits and prudential considerations)
- People ex rel. Alzayat v. Hebb, 18 Cal.App.5th 801 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (standard for taking facts on review of judgment on pleadings)
- Collier v. Lindley, 203 Cal. 641 (Cal. 1928) (court exercised discretion to resolve public-interest questions despite standing concerns)
- Yelp Inc. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.App.5th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (third-party standing requires concrete injury, close relationship, and hindrance to third party)