People ex rel. Harris v. Rizzo

• Decision Date: 20 March 2013
• Docket Number: B236246
• Citation: 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 443,214 Cal.App.4th 921
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE EX REL. Kamala D. HARRIS, as Attorney General, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Robert A. RIZZO et al., Defendants and Respondents.

214 Cal.App.4th 921

154 Cal.Rptr.3d 443

The PEOPLE EX REL. Kamala D. HARRIS, as Attorney General, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.Robert A. RIZZO et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B236246

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

Filed March 20, 2013

Reversed and remanded with directions.

See 4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Introduction to Criminal Procedure, § 14 et seq.

APPEAL from a judgment of dismissal of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ralph W. Dau, Judge. Judgment is reversed and remanded with directions. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC445497)

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Douglas J. Woods, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Peter A. Krause and Mark R. Beckington, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of James W. Spertus, James W. Spertus, Ezra D. Landes and Amy M. Hinkley, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent, Robert A. Rizzo.

Aleshire & Wynder, David J. Aleshire, Irvine, Anthony R. Taylor and Michael C. Huston, for Defendant and Respondent, City of Bell.

Law Offices of Russell G. Petti and Russell G. Petti, for Defendant and Respondent, Pier'angela Spaccia.

Kaye, McLane & Bednarski and Ronald Kaye, Pasadena, for Defendant and Respondent, George Cole.

Stanley L. Friedman, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent, Oscar Hernandez.

Byrne & Nixon, Daniel Nixon and Jennifer Derwin, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent, Teresa Jacobo.

Law Office of Leo J. Moriarty and Leo J. Moriarty, Garden Grove, for Defendants and Respondents, Victor Bello and George Mirabal.

Paul Hastings, Thomas P. O'Brien, Katherine F. Murray and Nicholas J. Begakis, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent, Randy G. Adams.

CROSKEY, J.

When it appears that a charter city is under the control of individuals who are looting the city's coffers for their own benefit, can the Attorney General, on behalf of the city, bring an action against the allegedly corrupt individuals, to remove the city from their control and require them to pay restitution to the city? We conclude that the Attorney General may bring such an action, and seek recovery from the corrupt individuals to the extent their acts were unauthorized.

This case concerns the City of Bell (City), a charter city with a population of 38,250. It was discovered that the Chief Administrative Officer of the City, the Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, and five City Councilmembers were receiving salaries well in excess of the amounts paid similar individuals in similarly-sized cities, and that these seven individuals went to great lengths to conceal their salaries from public knowledge. It was also revealed that the Chief Administrative Officer had hired an individual to serve as Chief of Police at a high salary; the terms of his employment contract were structured so as not to disclose the true extent of his salary.¹

When the true salaries of these individuals were made public, a scandal erupted. It became clear that legal action should be taken. However, as the City was still under the control of the apparently corrupt officials, the City brought no action against them. Therefore, the Attorney General brought the instant action, challenging the excessive salaries and seeking reimbursement for the City. Shortly thereafter, the District Attorney filed criminal proceedings.² Ultimately, following a recall election, city management changed. Although the City had initially opposed the Attorney General's pursuit of this action, the City now fully supports the Attorney General's right to bring this action on its behalf.

The defendants demurred to the operative complaint, arguing, among other things, the Attorney General's lack of standing, immunity for legislative acts, and the doctrine of separation of powers. The trial court sustained the demurrers of defendants without leave to amend,³ and dismissed the action. The trial court concluded that the allegedly excessive salaries were legislative acts for which the defendants were immune. Relying on the doctrine of separation of powers, the court concluded that the judiciary had no jurisdiction to interfere with the City Council's legislative decisions regarding compensation.

On appeal, we conclude that the Attorney General does have standing to pursue this action on behalf of the City. We further conclude that, although separation of powers and legislative immunity bar pursuit of this action with respect to acts within the discretion of City officials, these doctrines do not prevent the action from proceeding with respect to defendants' allegedly ultra vires acts. We therefore hold that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrers without leave to amend. Finally, we address the trial court's denial of the Attorney General's motion to stay proceedings in this case pending resolution of the criminal actions against defendants. While we agree that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, we note that subsequent events may justify reconsideration of the motion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Allegations of the Complaint

The operative complaint ⁴ focuses on the excessive salaries and benefits paid defendants, as well as efforts to hide those salaries and benefits from public knowledge. We discuss the allegations against each defendant briefly.

Defendant Robert Rizzo was the Chief Administrative Officer of the City from May 1993 through at least July 2010. Under section 603 of the Bell Charter, the Chief Administrative Officer “shall be paid a salary commensurate with the responsibilities of chief administrative officer of the City.” Rizzo's base salary in 2010 was $787,500. This salary is allegedly “over three times what cities of comparable population in the Los Angeles region pay to their city managers on average.” In 2008, when other city employees were being laid off, Rizzo received five new employment contracts providing for 12 percent annual increases to his salary. Rizzo's 2008 contracts provided that he would accrue service credit with the California Public Employees' Retirement System at double the normal rate, allowing for double retirement benefits. In 2008, Rizzo was provided with 107 vacation days and 36 days of sick leave (out of approximately 250 working days) per year. In 2009, Rizzo sold back over 130 days of leave time for over $360,000, bringing his total salary for that year to a total in excess of $1.1 million. The Attorney General also alleged that Rizzo's 2008 contracts were procedurally unauthorized; the contracts were not approved by the city council; instead, they were signed by one councilmember, who signed as the purported mayor. However, that councilmember was not the mayor at the time.

Defendant Pier'angela Spaccia was hired by Rizzo, first as Assistant to the Chief Administrative Officer, then as Assistant Chief Administrative Officer. In 2010, her base salary was $336,000. This amount is more than 40% higher than the salary for city managers (not assistant city managers) in the Los Angeles region with populations comparable to that of Bell. In 2008, when other city employees were being laid off, Rizzo approved a contract providing Spaccia with a 20% raise and automatic 12% increases thereafter. Like Rizzo, Spaccia was granted 143 days of vacation and sick leave per year, which she was permitted to sell back to increase her pay. In 2009, she sold back leave time for nearly $175,000.

Defendants Oscar Hernandez, Teresa Jacobo, George Mirabal, Victor Bello, and George Cole (collectively, Councilmember defendants) were councilmembers (and some, at times, served as mayor) of the City. Under section 502 of the Bell Charter, Councilmembers “shall receive compensation for their services as may be prescribed by ordinance or resolution, but with respect to service as a Council member not to exceed the amount which Council Members of general law cities of similar population would receive under State law.” Under state law, a city with a population between 35,000 and 50,000 shall pay its councilmembers no more than $400 per month.⁵ Gov.Code, § 36516, subd. (a)(2)(B).) In 2010, the Councilmember defendants who were still on the city council were to receive $8000 per month in salary.⁶

Randy Adams ⁷ was hired by Rizzo as the police chief of Bell from May 2009. Adams had a base salary in excess of $457,000, an amount which “grossly exceeds” salaries of police chiefs of cities of comparable population in the Los Angeles region. Adams was also granted “excessive and wasteful benefits,” including lifetime health insurance benefits for his dependents. Rizzo also agreed, on behalf of the City, to support Adams's claim for medical disability retirement upon his retirement from Bell. This gives rise to the inference that Rizzo hired Adams at an excessive salary to perform a job which Rizzo already believed Adams was, at least in part, disabled from performing.

It was further alleged that the defendants defrauded the public as to the extent of their compensation. Specifically, it was alleged that the Councilmember defendants passed an ordinance which was titled as an ordinance “ limiting compensation for members of the City Council,” (emphasis added) when, in fact, the ordinance nearly doubled their compensation. We refer to this as the “misleading ordinance.” Similarly, it was alleged that in September 2008, at Rizzo's direction, a memorandum was prepared to be given by the city clerk to any member of the public who inquired about the salaries of city officers and employees. The memorandum falsely stated that Councilmember defendants were paid $673 per month, when they were actually paid $7,600 per month, and that Rizzo was paid $15,478 per month, when he was actually paid over $52,000 per month. We refer to this as the “misleading memorandum.” ⁸

Finally, the complaint contained allegations relating to the City's Supplemental Retirement Plan, which provided retirement...