December 5, 2014 -- Client Alert
On December 1, 2014, the California Supreme Court held, in Riverside County Sheriff’s Department v. Stiglitz,et al. (Stiglitz), that a hearing officer in an administrative appeal of discipline of a correctional officer has the authority to rule upon a discovery motion for peace officer personnel records, commonly referred to as a Pitchess motion.
September 19, 2014 -- On September 16, Governor Jerry Brown approved a trio of bills - AB 1739 (Dickinson), SB 1168 (Pavley), and SB 1319 (Pavley), collectively the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act - that address the regulation of groundwater in California, with the primary aim of sustainable management of unadjudicated groundwater basins throughout the state.
July 11, 2014 -- Client Alert
On July 8, 2014 the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) issued a notice of proposed emergency rulemaking for regulations that would prohibit all individuals from engaging in certain water use practices and would require mandatory conservation-related actions of public water suppliers during the current drought emergency.
June 29, 2014 -- Client Alert
This Client Alert provides a broad overview of the rights of retired peace officers when it comes to retirement identification certificates and carrying concealed firearm endorsements under California and federal law. The decision to deny or revoke a retired peace officer’s retirement identification or firearm endorsement should not be made before discussing with legal counsel. Please feel free to contact our office with any additional questions.
January 21, 2014 -- On January 15, 2014, the California Supreme Court denied review of a “landmark” ruling from the Second Appellate District in favor of the City of Carson and reported as Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson (2013) 220 Cal. App.
October 29, 2013 -- Client Alert
In its recent decision, Griffith v. Pajaro, the Sixth District of the Court of Appeal answered questions about Proposition 218 that it did not have the opportunity to address in its 2007 decision, Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. Amrhein (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1364. In Griffith, which was a consolidated appeal with related case, Pendry v. Pajaro, the Court reaffirmed its holding that Proposition 218 (specifically, article XIII D, § 6 of the California Constitution) applies to fees imposed upon groundwater production and further clarified that such fees are not subject to the ratification election required for all property-related fees, except fees for “sewer, water, and refuse collection services.”
October 3, 2013 -- October 1, 2013. Aleshire & Wynder’s Rent Control and Mobilehome Park Team (including partners Bill Wynder, Sunny Soltani, and Associate Jeff Malawy) assisted its client, the City of Carson, in urging the passage of an important piece of legislation (SB 510 [Jackson]) which has just been signed into law by Governor Brown. SB 510 forever ends the much litigated, and much debated, question regarding the scope of a municipality’s discretion to deny mobilehome park subdivisions (or “conversions”) to resident ownership where the is a lack of resident support for the conversion. The new la
September 12, 2013 -- Do California’s cities have a duty to warn visitors to their parks that gang members may be present? And if cities have such a duty, how do they afford park visitors such a warning? These were among the issues that two of the Firm’s litigation team resolved in favor of our client, the City of Carson.
January 16, 2013 -- Client Alert
The California Supreme Court will consider whether a hearing officer in an administrative appeal of the dismissal of a correctional officer employed by a county sheriff’s department has the authority to grant a Pitchess motion.
December 6, 2012 -- The Second District Court of Appeal has affirmed a favorable ruling obtained by Aleshire & Wynder attorneys on behalf of the City of Carson on enforcement of a judgment against the City of La Mirada and La Mirada Redevelopment Agency: City of Carson v. City of La Mirada, Second District Court of Appeal Case No.
