Untitled California Attorney General Opinion
21-201
| Cal. Att'y Gen. | Jul 15, 2021Background
- Michael Rives was elected Nov. 3, 2020 to both the Antelope Valley Healthcare District Board (assumed Dec. 8, 2020) and the Antelope Valley Community College District Board (assumed on or about Dec. 11, 2020).
- The City of Lancaster (located within both districts and home to Antelope Valley Hospital) seeks AG permission to file quo warranto to oust Rives from the Healthcare District board under Gov. Code §1099 for holding incompatible offices.
- The City submitted a School Affiliation Agreement between Antelope Valley Hospital and Antelope Valley College providing clinical training for nursing students (effective July 1, 2020, expiring June 30, 2023).
- Government Code §1099 (codifying the common‑law incompatibility doctrine) treats simultaneous holding of incompatible public offices as forfeiture and directs enforcement via Code of Civil Procedure §803 (quo warranto).
- The Attorney General applied a three‑part gatekeeping test (remedy availability; substantial legal/factual issue; public interest) and concluded there are substantial questions whether the two boards’ overlapping powers and the School Affiliation Agreement create a significant clash of duties or loyalties.
- Because a potential conflict in regular operations is sufficient (actual conflict not required) and abstention by the dual officeholder would not cure the issue, the AG granted leave to sue in quo warranto.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of quo warranto remedy | §1099 forfeiture is enforceable via CCP §803, so quo warranto is proper | Not disputed | AG: Quo warranto is available under CCP §803 and §1099 |
| Whether the two offices are incompatible | Dual service creates a possibility of significant clash (contracts, negotiations, shared programs like the School Affiliation Agreement) so Rives forfeited first office | Challenges authenticity/validity of agreement and raises unrelated allegations about City motives | AG: Substantial questions of law/fact exist as to incompatibility given overlapping powers and the affiliation agreement; judicial resolution warranted |
| Public interest in permitting quo warranto | Resolving incompatibility serves public interest and prevents divided loyalties that impede boards | Argues political motives and other PR Act allegations (irrelevant to quo warranto gatekeeping) | AG: Public interest favors allowing the action; leave to sue granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Eldridge v. Sierra View Local Hospital Dist., 224 Cal.App.3d 311 (1990) (healthcare district board is a public office for incompatibility analysis)
- Moore v. Panish, 32 Cal.3d 535 (1982) (criteria for what constitutes a public office)
- People ex rel. Chapman v. Rapsey, 16 Cal.2d 636 (1940) (incompatibility doctrine where duties cannot be discharged concurrently)
- People ex rel. Lacey v. Robles, 44 Cal.App.5th 804 (2020) (quo warranto as modern successor and preventive nature of incompatibility rule)
- Rando v. Harris, 228 Cal.App.4th 868 (2014) (AG gatekeeping three‑part analysis for private quo warranto relators)
- Chevlin v. Los Angeles Community College Dist., 212 Cal.App.3d 382 (1989) (illustrates potential conflicts from clinical programs/contracts between hospitals and colleges)