Skulason v. Cal. Bureau of Real Estate, 14 Cal. App. 5th 562

Background

Skulason, a real estate salesperson, had three misdemeanor convictions (1996–1999); she admitted them in a 2004 administrative proceeding that produced a restricted license, later obtaining an unrestricted license in 2010.
In 2013 Skulason obtained court dismissals of the three convictions under Penal Code §§ 1203.4 and 1203.4a.
The California Bureau of Real Estate maintained a public licensee page that linked to the 2004 statement of issues, which disclosed the earlier convictions but did not indicate they were later dismissed.
Skulason asked the Bureau to remove the statement of issues from its website; the Bureau refused and she petitioned for a writ of mandate and injunctive/declaratory relief.
The trial court ordered removal of any documents referencing the dismissed convictions and awarded Skulason attorney fees; the Bureau appealed.
The Court of Appeal reversed: it held the Bureau had no mandatory duty to remove publicly available records of convictions (even if later dismissed) and therefore the writ and fee award were improper.

Issues

Issue	Skulason's Argument	Bureau's Argument	Held
Whether Penal Code §§ 1203.4/1203.4a or related law mandate removal of public records of convictions from the Bureau’s website after dismissal	§§ 1203.4/1203.4a (and their purpose) require removal because posting imposes a continuing "penalty or disability"	No statute requires removal; posting public records is discretionary and not prohibited	No mandatory duty to remove; writ improperly issued
Whether Labor Code § 432.7 (ban on employers using dismissed-conviction information) imposes a duty on the Bureau to remove such information from its site	§ 432.7 works with §§ 1203.4/1203.4a to bar dissemination to potential employers and thus requires removal	§ 432.7 applies to "employers" and does not create obligations for non-employers like the Bureau	§ 432.7 does not impose a removal duty on the Bureau
Whether posting publicly available conviction records on the Bureau’s site violates a constitutional right to privacy	Posting is a serious invasion of privacy because Internet publication makes records readily accessible and harms employment prospects	The statement of issues and conviction records are public; no reasonable expectation of privacy for public records	No privacy violation; public records receive no protected privacy interest
Whether Skulason is entitled to attorney fees under CCP § 1021.5 after prevailing in trial court	Fees awarded because action vindicated public interest and policy behind expungement statutes	Fees improper if Skulason did not prevail on appeal	Fee award reversed because plaintiff did not prevail on appeal

Key Cases Cited

Marquez v. State Dept. of Health Care Services, 240 Cal.App.4th 87 (Cal. Ct. App.) (requirements for writ of mandate: clear, present, ministerial duty)
Baranchik v. Fizulich, 10 Cal.App.5th 1210 (Cal. Ct. App.) (§ 1203.4 does not "expunge" convictions; it relieves certain penalties and disabilities)
Danser v. Public Employees' Retirement System, 240 Cal.App.4th 885 (Cal. Ct. App.) (recognizing limits of § 1203.4 relief)
People v. Lewis, 146 Cal.App.4th 294 (Cal. Ct. App.) (describing scope of dismissal statutes)
People v. Field, 31 Cal.App.4th 1778 (Cal. Ct. App.) (records of convictions dismissed under § 1203.4 are publicly accessible)
People v. Sharman, 17 Cal.App.3d 550 (Cal. Ct. App.) (§ 1203.4 does not require removal of conviction records from public access)
Loder v. City of Glendale, 14 Cal.4th 846 (Cal.) (elements for actionable invasion of privacy)
Fredenburg v. City of Fremont, 119 Cal.App.4th 408 (Cal. Ct. App.) (no privacy interest in public information)
U.D. Registry, Inc. v. State of California, 34 Cal.App.4th 107 (Cal. Ct. App.) (publishing information from public court records does not violate privacy)
U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Committee, 489 U.S. 749 (U.S.) (Internet and electronic access greatly increase accessibility of public records)