Adkins v. Leach
Decision Date | 21 May 1971 |
Citation | 17 Cal.App.3d 771,95 Cal.Rptr. 61 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Bobby ADKINS on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. William LEACH as Monterey County Director of Welfare et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 28152. |
Maurice Jourdane, Salinas, for appellant.
William H. Stoffers, County Counsel of the County of Monterey, John O. Thornberry, Asst. County Counsel, Salinas, for respondents.
Plaintiff Bobby Adkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed an action 'for injunction and declaration (sic) relief' against the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, the county welfare department, and certain officials of that department. A general demurrer to his amended complaint was sustained after which a judgment of dismissal of the action was entered. The appeal is from the judgment.
The amended complaint purports to state three causes of action, the separate statements of which are not exemplary. We interpret its allegations as follows.
COUNT ONE:
Adkins, 'a disabled father,' with his family of four left his home in Kansas, destined for California. He arrived in Monterey County without funds or available living quarters, and with a short supply of food. He promptly contacted the county welfare department and, informing that agency of his needy circumstances, applied for 'Aid to Families with Dependent Children' (see Welf. & Inst.Code, §§ 11200--11507), which application was accepted and thereafter processed. He also applied for general relief covering his immediate needs, i.e., food vouchers and rent assistance. 1
The application for general relief was denied. He 'was told that he could receive a food voucher only after he could give the department an address of a dwelling at which he was residing.' He was also told 'that he could receive rent assistance only if he could find a vacant dwelling and a landlord who would accept payment a month or two after the outset of the tenancy with the possibility he would not get any money if the tenant was not eligible for Categorical Aid, * * *' Adkins then commenced a search within the county for such a dwelling and landlord. He met with no success; payment of rent in advance was uniformly required. He reported his failure to the welfare office and repeated his request for immediate general relief. The request was again denied, for the reason previously given. Thus Adkins and his family were in a position of frustration where they could obtain no relief until they had a county residence, and they could acquire no county residence until they were furnished relief. As a result, he alleges, his family and 'all others similarly situated' were and 'are compelled to live in the streets and cannot obtain food,' and have suffered and are suffering irreparable injury. 2 Defendants * * *'
The relief sought as to Count One is 'an order declaring that the present food voucher and deferred rent systems do not fulfill defendant Supervisors' duty under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 17000.)'
COUNT TWO:
Generally the allegations of Count One are here incorporated. In addition it is alleged:
The relief sought as to Court Two is 'an order compelling defendant Board of Supervisors to promulgate regulations as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 17001.'
COUNT THREE:
Generally the allegations of Counts One and Two are incorporated in Count Three. Additionally, the following is alleged:
The relief sought as to Count Three is 'an order prohibiting defendant Welfare Department from enacting and enforcing general relief regulations not adopted by defendant Board of Supervisors.'
In each of the three counts of the amended complaint Adkins alleges:
The defendants demurred to the amended complaint on the following grounds:
The demurrer was sustained by the trial court on the single stated ground 'not class action--not ascertainable.'
The following sections of the Welfare and Institutions Code are pertinent to this appeal.
Section 17000: 'Every county and every city and county shall relieve and support all incompetent, poor, indigent persons, and those incapacitated by age, disease, or accident, lawfully resident therein, when such persons are not supported and relieved by their relatives or friends, by their own means, or by state hospitals or other state or private institutions.' 3
Section 17001: 'The board of supervisors of each county, or the agency authorized by county charter, shall adopt standards of aid and care for the indigent and dependent poor of the county or city and county, * * *'
Section 17006: 'The board of supervisors of every county as a board, or by committee or by such person or society as it may authorize, shall investigate every application for relief from the funds of the county, * * *'
The sustaining of defendant's general demurrer to the amended complaint was proper only if each of its three counts did not state a cause of action. (See Lord v. Garland, 27 Cal.2d 840, 850, 168 P.2d 5.) Of course, if the general demurrer should have been sustained on any ground, the reason stated therefor by the court is immaterial. And the allegations of the amended complaint, for the purposes of demurrer must be deemed true. (Kenworthy v. Brown, 248 Cal.App.2d 298, 300, 56 Cal.Rptr. 461.)
We choose first to consider Counts Two and Three and whether a proper representative or class action is stated therein.
Adkins' argument with respect to these counts may be summarized in this manner. The law, section 17000, requires a county to render general aid to the class of persons therein described. Section 17001 mandates the county supervisors to 'adopt standards' under which such aid is rendered. The Monterey County Board of Supervisors has not (as alleged in the amended complaint) adopted standards under which aid is to be given to (or withheld from) the persons described in section 17000. Instead, such standards were adopted by the county welfare department, or some other 'non-supervisorial' body or person unknown. 4 He, Adkins, is one of the persons described in section 17000, and is therefore entitled to have his eligibility for aid determined by standards adopted by the board of supervisors. And 'all other similarly situated,' i.e., persons desiring county aid who are described in section 17000, are equally entitled to have their right to aid determined by supervisorially adopted standards.
The basic authority in this state for the maintenance of class actions is Code of Civil Procedure section 382 which, as pertinent, provides that 'when the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court, one or more may sue or defend for the benefit of all.'
The California Supreme Court in Daar v. Yellow Cab Co., 67 Cal.2d 695, 704, 63 Cal.Rptr. 724, 731, 433 P.2d 732, 739, has collected relevant authority and restated the circumstances under which such actions are permissible. The court says that
In the case at bench it must...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hefczyc v. Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego
...community of interest in the questions of law and fact involved affecting the parties to be represented’ "]; Adkins v. Leach (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 771, 777, 95 Cal.Rptr. 61 [in a proposed class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of welfare recipients, the court applie......
-
Reyes v. Board of Supervisors
...rests solely not in the ascertainability of a class of past welfare recipients under section 17000 et seq. (Adkins v. Leach (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 771, 776-777, 95 Cal.Rptr. 61), but rather the underlying reality that those indigent and disabled who qualify for general relief are utterly desp......
-
Berkeley v. Alameda County Bd. of Supervisors
...is funded solely by county money, and is governed by rules and regulations adopted by the board of supervisors. (Adkins v. Leach, 17 Cal.App.3d 771, 95 Cal.Rptr. 61.) The statutory guidelines are contained in Welfare and Institutions Code sections 17000 and 17001. Section 17000 states that:......
-
Robbins v. Superior Court
...(See, e.g., Berkeley v. Alameda County Board of Supervisors (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 961, 971, 115 Cal.Rptr. 540; Adkins v. Leach (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 771, 778-779, 95 Cal.Rptr. 61; Patten v. County of San Diego (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 467, 470, 235 P.2d However, there are clear-cut limits. " 'Th......