Let's Talk Standing

People for the Ethical Operation of Prosecutors and Law Enforcement v. Spitzer, No. G057546 (D4d3 Aug. 12, 2020)

Plaintiffs here bring a taxpayer action under Code of Civil Procedure § 526a and a writ of mandate, challenging the legality of a confidential informant program the OC Sheriff is alleged running in the county jails. 

The trial court dismissed for lack of standing. But that’s wrong. 

Section 525a conveys broad standing in taxpayers to sue to enjoin unlawful government activity. And although § 3369 prohibits injunctions to “enforce a penal law,” against criminal conduct, it doesn’t apply here, even though some of the allegations implicate the OC DA and Sheriff in violating the provisions of the Penal Code that codify the Brady doctrine. As the Court explains § 3369’s reference to penal law is to criminal conduct, not criminal procedure. 

There’s also standing for the writ claim. Mandamus standing generally requires the plaintiff to be beneficially interested. But there’s an exception for public interest claims. The exception is subject to some prudential limitations. For instance, it can’t be used to collaterally attack other proceedings. But none of them apply here.

Reversed.

In Which the Author Outs Himself as a (Soft) Textualist ...

Leider v. Lewis, No. S232622 (Cal. May 25, 2017)

The trial court in this case issued an injunction against certain practices involving the elephant enclosure at the LA Zoo. The Court of Appeal affirmed, in a split decision, over the Zoo’s challenge that Civil Code § 3369 prohibited the issuance of an injunction against acts of animal cruelty that were prohibited only by criminal laws in the Penal Code. The Court of Appeal held that the argument was barred by the resolution of a prior appeal under the law of the case doctrine, and that, in any event, it was wrong on the merits. But the Supreme Court granted review and now unanimously disagrees.

Running from the Text

Leider v. Lewis, No. B244414 (D2d8 Feb 10, 2016)

This is a long-running dispute about the treatment of the elephants at the LA Zoo. Plaintiff brought his case under the taxpayer standing statute, Code of Civil Procedure § 526a, asking the court to enjoin violations of various animal cruelty statutes in the Penal Code. This is the second appeal in the case; a prior summary judgment for defendant was reversed. The court held a bench trial, rejecting plaintiff’s demand to close the exhibit. But it granted a limited injunction regarding appropriate elephant discipline, exercise time, and requiring rototilling of the soil in the elephant exhibit. Both sides appeal.

The procedural issue comes up in the zoo’s appeal. The zoo argues that Civil Code § 3369's prohibition on issuing injunctions to enforce criminal laws bars plaintiff’s taxpayer standing claim. A split decision finds two problems with that argument.