Steinberg v. Chiang
223 Cal. App. 4th 338
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Steinberg and Pérez (Legislature leaders) sought declaration that balanced-budget provision is satisfied when revenue estimates exceed appropriations in the budget bill; Controller challenged declaring the budget balanced and withholding salaries; 2011 budget bill favored to Governor, later vetoed; Controller determined not balanced due to revenues not yet authorized; Legislature filed January 2012 for declaratory relief on authority and penalties; trial court granted declaratory relief; appeal affirmed.
- In 2011, Legislature estimated $87.8B in revenue and $86.6B in appropriations plus existing funds; Governor vetoed for not balancing; Controller issued a June 21, 2011 determination that the budget was not balanced and salaries could be forfeited.
- Legislature passed a balanced budget on June 28, 2011, signed June 30, 2011; suit sought enforceable declaration that Controller cannot deem budgets unbalanced or withhold salaries.
- Controller contends there is no actual controversy or that he may audit revenue estimates to test balance; Legislature argues ongoing relationship and future disputes require a declaration.
- Court held there is an actual controversy and declaratory relief proper; Controller lacks authority to second-guess revenue estimates in a balanced-budget calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an actual controversy exists for declaratory relief | Steinberg argues ongoing dispute with Controller justifies relief | Chiang argues no ongoing controversy and no need for declaration | Yes, an actual controversy exists and relief proper |
| Whether Controller may audit revenue estimates to determine balance | Steinberg claims Controller has no authority to second-guess estimates | Chiang argues he may audit legality of disbursements and budget balance | No, Controller cannot second-guess legislative revenue estimates; Legislature controls the balance determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Environmental Defense Project of Sierra County v. County of Sierra, 158 Cal.App.4th 877 (Cal.App.4th 2008) (certainty of real dispute supports declaratory relief; ripeness)
- Gilb v. Chiang, 186 Cal.App.4th 444 (Cal.App.4th 2010) (ongoing dispute likely to recur supports actual controversy)
- Schabarum v. California Legislature, 60 Cal.App.4th 1205 (Cal.App.4th 1998) (limits on judicial interference with legislative prerogatives; enforcement role of Governor)
- Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Comm., 33 Cal.3d 158 (Cal. 1982) (relevance of speculative projects/conditions in declaratory relief)
- Farm Sanctuary, Inc. v. Department of Food & Agriculture, 63 Cal.App.4th 495 (Cal.App.4th 1998) (availability of declaratory relief alongside other remedies)