Ardon v. city of los angeles. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA (2020)

Ardon v. City of L.A.

ardon v. city of los angeles

City and County of San Francisco 2007 155 Cal. Herrera, City Attorney San Francisco , Julie Van Nostern, Chief Tax Attorney, and Peter J. Our holding that the inadvertent release of exempt documents does not waive the exemption under the Public Records Act must not be construed as an invitation for agencies to recast, at their option, any past disclosures as inadvertent so that a privilege can be reasserted subsequently. We further note that construing section 6254. The substance of an inadvertent disclosure under such circumstances demonstrates that there was no voluntary release. The exception sought by City would accomplish exactly that; viz. Plaintiff argues that none of the exceptions to the waiver rule in section 6254.

Next

Ardon v. City of Los Angeles (S223876)

ardon v. city of los angeles

The present case can be distinguished from the Woosley case and its progeny that have prohibited class suits for tax refunds. Chimicles to appear pro hac vice for appellant Estuardo Ardon to court for permission Oct 2 2009 Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice granted The application of Nicholas E. Made sense at the time — duration and distance were how phone calls were billed. The brief was prepared by Paul Zarefsky, Deputy City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco. City of San Jose, supra, 12 Cal.

Next

Ardon v. City of Los Angeles

ardon v. city of los angeles

Mathews for admission pro hac vice to appear on behalf of plaintiff and appellant is hereby granted. As Oronoz observed, however, these cases are distinguishable, because they all considered statutes or municipal ordinances enacted to provide specific procedures for filing tax claims against governmental entities—procedures that are not applicable or required in this case. In the Court of Appeal, the City contended that Ardon must file the refund claim under Los Angeles Municipal Code section 21. When the mistake was discovered, the defense attorney refused to return the documents, contending that their production had waived the privilege. Please return to this website for important updates and information.

Next

Ardon v. City of Los Angeles :: 2016 :: Supreme Court of California Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: US Law :: Justia

ardon v. city of los angeles

Mathews for Plaintiff and Appellant. Costs on appeal are awarded to Ardon. Both Ardon and his lawyers can expect a healthy payday from the settlement, though it's not clear how much. The city council passed the amendment to the ordinance on January 9, 2007. Woosley commands deference only to statutes passed by the state Legislature, not local ordinances.

Next

The City of L.A. Owes You Each $50, and Here's How to Get It

ardon v. city of los angeles

The exceptions in section 6254. Therefore, class claims for taxpayer refunds against local governmental entities brought under section 910 are also permitted in California. . A party who inadvertently produces a privileged document in discovery may have a statutory right to have the privileged document returned and may invoke the process of the Court to invoke that right. And as noted, because the documents were disclosed to Ms. Sep 9 2009 Petition for review granted Votes: George, C. The city responded that the documents had been inadvertently produced and demanded their return.

Next

Ardon v. City of Los Angeles (S223876)

ardon v. city of los angeles

Indeed, if the inadvertent disclosure under the Public Records Act is made to a nonlawyer, the public agency might never become aware of the mistake. But he argues, and the Court of Appeal in this case agreed, that this purpose supports the conclusion that the disclosure here did constitute a waiver. City of Los Angeles 2004 34 Cal. Superior Court Oronoz , supra, 159 Cal. Whether a class action for refund of local taxes can be brought under Government Code section 910 against municipal government. City of San Jose held that class claims are permitted under section 910. Instead, the City argued, each member of the alleged class must file a government claim with the City before Ardon could proceed with a class action lawsuit.

Next

Ardon v. City of Los Angeles :: 2014 :: California Courts of Appeal Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: US Law :: Justia

ardon v. city of los angeles

Rather, read together, the provisions appear to address the authority of public agencies with respect to releasing exempt documents. Herrera, City Attorney San Francisco , Christine Van Aken, Chief of Appellate Litigation, Paul Zarefsky and Warren Metlitzky, Deputy City Attorneys, for League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. Jun 16 2011 Note: Mail returned and re-sent Order on request for judicial notice. Rather, the Act itself sets forth its purpose: 'In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. But the superior court made no findings beyond holding that inadvertent disclosure waives the privileges. However, we did not mean that City of San Jose forbids all class action claims for tax refunds; rather, Woosley precluded class claims for tax refunds where the Legislature has explicitly set forth procedures for obtaining those refunds and has refused to authorize class claims under those procedures. It also partially overruled and partially sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and stayed other causes of action.

Next