Gonzales v. Jones

• Decision Date: 06 February 1981
• Citation: 171 Cal.Rptr. 567,116 Cal.App.3d 978
• Parties: Darlene GONZALES and Welfare Recipients League, Inc. et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Wesley JONES, etc. et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 45380.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 567

171 Cal.Rptr. 567

116 Cal.App.3d 978

Darlene GONZALES and Welfare Recipients League, Inc. et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Wesley JONES, etc. et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 45380.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

Feb. 6, 1981.

Ray Lewis Fuller, Welfare Recipients League, San Jose, for plaintiffs and appellants, Gonzales and Welfare Recipients League.

Frank M. Garcia and H. David Grunbaum, Community Legal Services, San Jose, for plaintiffs and appellants, Evans and Jennings.

Selby Brown, Jr., County Counsel, Robert A. Weers, Deputy Public Defender, County of Santa Clara, San Jose, for defendants and respondents.

TAYLOR, Presiding Justice.

General Assistance (GA) recipients ¹ appeal from an order denying class certification in these consolidated actions challenging Santa Clara County (County) policies and regulations providing for termination of GA benefits for a fixed durational period for GA recipients who failed to cooperate without good cause in the County's "work for relief" program. The recipients contend that the trial court: (1) erred to their prejudice by denying class certification despite its finding that a prima facie case for class certification had been met; (2) used the wrong criteria and abused its discretion in ruling that their claims to retroactive benefits had to be determined on an individual basis. For the reasons set forth below, we have concluded that the order must be reversed.

As the underlying facts are not in dispute, we have adopted our statement of facts from that of the County with appropriate additions and deletions based on the pertinent record before us.

The initial complaints filed in early May 1977, sought injunctive and declaratory relief as well as mandate to challenge on numerous federal and state constitutional grounds the validity of the County's then six-month period of ineligibility imposed on employable GA recipients who had failed to cooperate in the County's "work for relief" program ² without good cause. On May 31, 1977, the County's board of supervisors amended its GA policy to provide for a uniform 60-day period of ineligibility applicable to both GA applicants and GA recipients. ³ The County answered and denied the class action and substantive allegations. After a hearing on the recipients' motion for class certification, the recipients filed selected answers to interrogatories and admissions of fact and a memorandum of points and authorities. The County's opposition included the declarations of its Assistant Director of Social Services (Stobbe), who stated that retroactive benefits had to be determined on an individual basis. However, the declaration of the County Counsel indicated that the County's administrative machinery could readily calculate retroactive benefits.

After hearing extensive arguments and examining the evidence presented, the court on October 3 entered its preliminary order denying the motion for class certification. The court ruled that since the County's former six-month period of ineligibility had been repealed, this issue was moot as to prospective relief, but pointed out that the validity of the former six-month period and the new 60-day period was a justiciable issue and potentially the matter could be tried as a class action. The court also ruled that retroactive GA benefits could not be awarded on a class basis because the issues relating to each individual's entitlement to retroactive recovery were too numerous and substantial to warrant the use of the class action device. The court directed the recipients to amend their complaints and motion for certification.

Subsequently, the complaints, as amended, realleged all of the causes of action and constitutional grounds, and further alleged that any durational period of ineligibility was invalid, and that the County's administrative fair hearing procedure for GA recipients violated the procedural due process guarantees of the federal and state Constitutions. The overall class alleged was all persons who had ever received GA benefits and subsequently were rendered ineligible by the challenged County policies. The first subclass was comprised of all persons rendered ineligible for six months from May 23, 1972, through May 31, 1977; the second, of all persons who received GA but were rendered ineligible for assistance under the 60-day revision of May 31, 1977. ⁴

The County's policies required termination for a fixed durational period after a finding that a recipient had failed to attend a scheduled work, training or vocational appointment "for good cause." The County's GA regulations also provided that if a recipient consistently failed to participate in the "work for relief" program without good cause, the recipient "shall be ineligible" to receive GA for a specified period. The County's stated grounds for discontinuance of a recipient's grant included refusal, without good cause, to accept an offer of employment or referral to a training program, and frequent unexcused absences from work assignment projects and Social Services Department appointments. The County admitted that it had neither a written nor operational definition of "good cause" and that the imposition of the durational period of ineligibility was not conditioned upon a finding of wilful or intentional failure to cooperate without good cause.

Subsequently, in a memorandum of decision, the court reiterated its denial of the recipients' motion to certify the class. In doing so, the court set forth its reasons, so far as pertinent, as follows: "There is no question but that there is an ascertainable class with a well-defined community interest in a single question of law. However, there are many subsidiary and ancillary questions of fact to be decided which are peculiar to each individual welfare claimant. This myriad of issues peculiar to each individual must unquestionably be handled on an individual basis. Due to the nature of the class and the attorneys representing both the class and the league (which is specifically for the benefit of welfare recipients) it is highly likely that an individual will pursue this possible right (to declare illegal or unconstitutional the compulsory disqualification). In addition thereto, it is highly likely that great segments of the two classes (the 60-day and 6 month groups) ⁵ would lose their qualifications as class members during the course of litigation because of the temporary vacillating and changing profile of public assistance recipients.

"It is for these reasons that the Court will order that the motion to certify these as class actions be denied:

"1. Though the complaints and petitions present prima facie cases warranting class certification, upon closer scrutiny the enormous amount of subsidiary and individualized issues overbear the community issue.

"2. There is no question in the Court's mind but that this case will be prosecuted on an individual basis which will be just as efficacious in proving or disproving the validity of the questioned regulation. Individual action does not have attendant upon it all of the ramifications and problems of a class action which will require expensive notice procedures. See McGhee v. Bank of America Nt&SA, 60 Cal.App.3d 442, (131 Cal.Rptr. 482)" (emphasis added).

Subsequently the court also denied the recipients' request for findings and conclusions ⁶ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 232(f).

As indicated above, the recipients' major contention on appeal is that the trial court erred and abused its discretion by using the above defined criteria to deny class certification.

The court below recognized that the prerequisite of a class action (an ascertainable class with a well-defined community of interest in questions of law and fact) had been met (Code Civ.Proc., § 382; Daar v. Yellow Cab Co., 67 Cal.2d 695, 63 Cal.Rptr. 724, 433 P.2d 732). Rogers v. Detrich, 58 Cal.App.3d 90, at page 103, 128 Cal.Rptr. 261, held that recipients of federal supplemental security income (SII) were a proper class, although there were four subclasses and each plaintiff did not rely on the same facts. Similarly, in Cavanaugh v. State of California, 85 Cal.App.3d 354, 360, 149 Cal.Rptr. 453, the rights of each member of the class (tenants entitled to relocation benefits) were not dependent on facts applicable only to him. Here, the wrong in each case is the imposition of the fixed durational sanction of denying GA benefits to GA recipients who failed to cooperate without good cause in the County's "work-for-relief" program.

As the recipients point out, only as a class can the rights of all the recipients be protected. The courts of this state must be especially vigilant in protecting the rights of the instant transitory recipients ⁷ who have no access to other forums, as GA benefits are totally funded by the County acting as an agent of the state (Mooney v. Pickett, 4 Cal.3d 669, 679, 94 Cal.Rptr. 279, 483 P.2d 1231; cf. Silva v. Vowell (5th Cir. 1980), 621 F.2d 640, at pp. 649-650). The trial court's ruling also ignored the "debt" theory of the right to retroactive class benefits discussed by this court in Hypolite v. Carleson, supra, 52 Cal.App.3d 566, at pages 583-585, 125 Cal.Rptr. 221.

In a similar context, the United States Supreme Court recently recognized that the chain of causation by which recipients establish eligibility for retroactive benefits depends on "numerous missing links which can be supplied, if at all, only by the State and members of the plaintiff class ...." (Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, at 347, 99 S.Ct. 1139, at 1148, 59 L.Ed.2d 358, at p. 371, emphasis added.) At oral argument, the County conceded that (contrary to the trial court's conclusion), suits by individual recipients were unlikely, as the claims were not likely to exceed $100 per recipient. The County also conceded that assuming the invalidity of the challenged policies and regulations, all...