San Diegans for Open Gov't v. Pub. Facilities Fin. Auth. of San Diego
Decision Date | 09 November 2017 |
Docket Number | D069751 |
Citation | 16 Cal.App.5th 1273,225 Cal.Rptr.3d 109 |
Parties | SAN DIEGANS FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Briggs Law Corporation and Cory J. Briggs ; Higgs Fletcher & Mack and Rachel E. Moffitt, San Diego, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Mara W. Elliott, San Diego City Attorney, David J. Karlin, Assistant City Attorney and Meghan Ashley Wharton, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents.
At issue here is a municipal ordinance, which authorized the issuance of bonds to be used to refinance the defendants' obligations with respect to construction of a baseball park. We find plaintiff taxpayers have standing under Government Code 1 section 1092 to challenge the ordinance on the grounds participants in the proposed transaction violated the conflict of interest provisions of section 1090. Accordingly, we must reverse the trial court's judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint, which judgment was entered on the grounds plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the ordinance.
On March 17, 2015, respondents City of San Diego (the city) and Public Facilities Financing Authority (PFFA)2 adopted San Diego Ordinance No. 0-20469 and PFFA Resolution No. FA-2015-2, which authorized issuance of 2015 Refunding Bonds (2015 Bonds). The 2015 Bonds, if issued, will refund and refinance the remaining amount owed by the city on bonds issued in 2007 with respect to construction of the baseball stadium at Petco Park.
On May 18, 2015, San Diegans For Open Government (SDFOG) filed a complaint that challenged the validity of the 2015 Bonds. SDFOG alleged that it is a nonprofit taxpayer organization and that at least one of its members is a resident of the city. SDFOG alleged, among other claims, that one or more members of the financing team that participated in preparation of the 2015 Bonds had a financial interest in the sale of the bonds and the existence of that interest in turn gave rise to a violation of section 1090. SDFOG sought, among other remedies, declaratory relief.
Prior to trial on the merits, SDFOG dismissed all of its substantive claims, other than its allegation the city had violated section 1090. Before commencing trial on the merits of SDFOG's section 1090 claim, the trial court asked for and received briefing from the parties with respect to SDFOG's standing. After considering the parties' briefing and the argument of counsel, the trial court determined, as a matter of law, that because SDFOG was not a party to the bond transaction, it lacked standing to pursue a section 1090 challenge. The trial court dismissed SDFOG's complaint, and judgment was entered in the city's favor. SDFOG filed a timely notice of appeal.
Where, as here, there is no dispute as to the material facts and the appellant only challenges a trial court's interpretation of law, we review the trial court's ruling de novo. (See Ghirardo v. Antonioli (1994) 8 Cal.4th 791, 799, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 418, 883 P.2d 960.)
Section 1090, subdivision (a) states:
The important policy embodied in section 1090 requires that its prohibitions be vigorously enforced so that in addition to punishing actual fraud and public malfeasance, public officials are not even tempted to engage in prohibited activity. The court fully set out the policy and the need for vigorous enforcement in Thomson v. Call (1985) 38 Cal.3d 633, 647–649, 214 Cal.Rptr. 139, 699 P.2d 316 ( Thomson ): "In San Diego v. S.D. & L.A. R.R. Co. [ (1872) ] 44 Cal. 106, we recognized the conflict-of-interest statutes' origins in the general principle that ‘no man can faithfully serve two masters whose interests are or may be in conflict’: ( 44 Cal. at p. 113.) We reiterated this rationale more recently in Stigall v. City of Taft [ (1962) ] 58 Cal.2d 565[, 570–571, 25 Cal.Rptr. 441, 375 P.2d 289 ( Stigall ) ]: ‘The instant statutes [§ 1090 et seq.] are concerned with any interest, other than perhaps a remote or minimal interest, which would prevent the officials from exercising absolute loyalty and undivided allegiance to the best interests of the city.’ [Citations.]
In Thomson , taxpayers sued the participants in a transaction in which a member of a city council sold property to a third party and the third party then transferred the property to the city as parkland as a means of fulfilling conditions of a development permit granted by the city. The relative innocence of the city council member, Call, did not prevent enforcement of section 1090. ( Thomson, supra , 38 Cal.3d at p. 650, 214 Cal.Rptr. 139, 699 P.2d 316, fn. omitted.)
Although section 1090 was enacted in 1943 (see...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
San Diegans for Open Gov't v. Pub. Facilities Fin. Auth. of San Diego
...to support standing," and that plaintiff possessed such an interest. ( San Diegans for Open Government v. Public Facilities Financing Authority of City of San Diego (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1273, 1284 ( San Diegans ).) Because it found plaintiff could pursue its claim under section 1092, it di......
-
Baez v. Cal. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys.
...where there is no actual impropriety, is undeniably a legitimate interest. (See San Diegans for Open Government v. Public Facilities Financing Authority of City of San Diego (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1273, 1279, review granted Jan. 24, 2018, S245996; Thomson v. Call (1985) 38 Cal.3d 633, 648; H......
-
Holloway v. Showcase Realty Agents, Inc.
...decision in the present case, a number of cases have criticized the rationale in San Bernardino . The most recent case is San Diegans for Open Government v . Public Facilities Financing Authority of City of San Diego (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1273, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 109 (review granted Jan. 24, 2......
- People v. Lozano