HomeMy WebLinkAboutFukuda V. City of Angels Camp •
73031
Mayor UI T Y of ANGEL
N Administrator
TAD FOLENDORF TIMOTHY A. SHEARER
Vice Mayor �o` • _,,L i v E D City Engineer
JACK JOHNSON WEBER/GHIO
Councilmembers 1• ^0 P(1 4 03 City Attorney
Incorpora e88 11:2;
WARREN AMBROSE RICHARD MATRANGA
DEBBIE PONTE Post Office Box 667 •�+5T884��rrSouth, i,S OFFICE
DONNA GRIFFIN ANGELS CAMP, CALff=ORNIA 952
Phone (209) 736-2181 • Fax (209) 736-0709
September 21, 1998
All City Mayors
RE: FUKUDA V. CITY OF ANGELS CAMP
Dear Fellow Mayors:
The City of Angels, also known as Angels Camp, located in the Sierra Nevada foothills,
is a small community of less than 3,000 people. For the past six years we have been
reluctant participants in a lawsuit that has now been elevated to the Supreme Court. The
outcome of this case will have long term impacts on every City and County in the State
of California. If we prevail in this battle, it will be a victory for all cities and counties.
This is a case about whether an administrative agency has the burden of proof in
mandamus proceedings challenging an agency action. The Attorney General's Office,
League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties have all
written letters in support of our position. The cost of litigation will exceed$200,000,
which equates to over 20% of our annual general fund budget. This fight is a fight for
your benefit as well as ours. This letter is an urgent plea for financial support to allow us
to continue to fight this battle and protect the legal rights of government entities in
California.
Enclosed is the "Legal Advocacy Committee Report"of August, 1998, regarding the
case. We ask that you consider the potential impact to your community if this ruling is
allowed to stand and join with us in this pivotal battle.
Sincerely you ,
� 1TY COUNCIL ACTION.
APPROVED ✓ DENIED
REcILIVED OTHER f , 40
Tad Folendorf 4,1 0.>J�t,r4
'e DATE
Mayor MO:
MOW
‘ES SENT:
ABSTAIN
V1iRIFIED BY: r
Original on F le with City Clerlt'i O#Piee
HOME OF THE JUMPING FROG
Who Has the Burden of Proof in Actions Challenging
Administrative Actions: The Agency or The Challenger? 1 (3d Dist.
Fukuda v. City of Angels Camp, 63 Cal. App. 4th 1426, 74 Cal. Rptr.
May 19, 1998).
Case Description: This is a case about whether an Case Status: The I.eag+ie joined a
administrative agency has the burden of proof in mandamus
andam us letter written by the California State
proceedings challenging an agency action. See generally Cal. Association of Counties suprnrting
Civ. Proc. Code § 1094.5. The Third District Court of Appeal Angels Camps petition for review
held that an agency which dismissed an employee continues to and. in the alternative. ac.lag frr
shoulder the burden of proof even after a trial court finds in its The rt�er Was filed on Julyon from i publication.
favor_ 19
In this case,the Angels Camp City Council and a hearing officer
sustained a decision by the chief of police to terminate a police l
officer for violating department policy. The fired officer then
took the city to superior court, where the court ruled that the city
had the burden of proving its findings with preponderance of
evidence. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court judgment
and found that, in cases involving fundamental, vested rights, the
city had the burden of proving that the preponderance of the
evidence supported the.city's findings.
This is at odds with previous case law. See Drummey v. State
Qd vj Funeral Directors, 13 Cal. 2d 75, 87 P.2d 848 (1939);
Chamberlain v. Ventura County Civil Serv. Comm'n, 69 Cal.
App. 3d 362, 138 Cal. Rptr. 155 (1977). Those cases place the
burden of proof on the complaining party to show that the
agency decision is contrary to the weight of the evidence.
12 Legal Advocacy Committee Report•August MR