Rando v. Harris
228 Cal. App. 4th 868
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Petitioners sought leave to sue in quo warranto against Quintero’s Glendale City Council appointment.
- City Charter requires vacancy fill by majority of remaining council, with 30-day deadline and potential special election.
- Section 12 prohibits a former councilmember from holding compensated city office or employment for two years; ambiguity existed whether this bans all city roles or only city employment.
- Attorney General issued an October 2013 opinion denying leave, interpreting Section 12 as ambiguous and favoring public interest not to pursue quo warranto.
- Trial court found AG had broad discretion under CCP §803, and affirmed denial of writ; appellate court upheld the judgment affirming the AG’s decision.
- Issues focus on whether AG abused discretion by resolving merits under a debatable interpretation and whether extrinsic evidence supported the interpretation of Section 12 to deny the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AG’s discretion to deny leave to sue in quo warranto was proper | Rando/ Rodas argue AG abused discretion | AG properly weighed public interest and substantiality | No abuse; discretion exercised proper basis |
| Whether Section 12 interpretation to avoid bar on Quintero was correct | Section 12 bars former councilmembers from any compensated City office | Interpretation aimed at preventing improper use of influence for non-elective City employment | AG’s interpretation reasonable; not required to adopt literal meaning |
| Whether extrinsic evidence supported voter intent on Amendment JJ | Voters intended term limits via Section 12 | Voter intent showed Amendment JJ clarifies outside employment, not term limits | Extrinsic evidence supports interpretation not to impose term limits |
| Whether the decision to not pursue quo warranto serves the public interest | Initiating quo warranto would vindicate public interest | Public interest not served given debatable issue and Quintero’s term expiring | Public interest not served; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Nicolopulos v. City of Lawndale, 91 Cal.App.4th 1221 (2001) (quo warranto requires AG leave; title to office not determined by mandamus)
- Firefighters, International Assn. of v. City of Oakland, 174 Cal.App.3d 687 (1985) (AG has discretion to refuse to sue where issue is debatable)
- City of Campbell v. Mosk, 197 Cal.App.2d 640 (1961) (AG discretion to grant/deny leave; substantiality and public interest)
- Lamb v. Webb, 151 Cal. 453 (1907) (extreme and indefensible abuse standard to compel action against AG)
- Woo v. Superior Court, 83 Cal.App.4th 967 (2000) (voter intent paramount when interpreting charter provisions)