Legal Opinions of the Attorney General -
Yearly Index

Opinions published in 2023

Opinion Question Conclusion(s) Issued
23-602 The San Joaquin Delta Community College District has applied to this office for leave to sue KATHLEEN GARCIA in quo warranto to remove her from serving as a member of the San Joaquin Delta Community College District Board of Trustees. The application asserts that Garcia, while serving on that board, assumed a second and incompatible office as a member of the Eastside Rural Fire Protection District Board of Trustees in violation of Government Code section 1099, and by doing so forfeited her seat on the College District board. We conclude that there is a substantial legal issue as to whether Garcia is simultaneously holding incompatible offices. Consequently, and because the public interest will be served by allowing the proposed quo warranto action to proceed, the application for leave to sue is GRANTED. 11/30/2023
23-402 SHAKIR KHAN has applied to this office for leave to sue RAMON YEPEZ in quo warranto to remove Yepez from his seat on the Lodi City Council. Khan, the former holder of that seat, alleges that the City Council unlawfully declared Khan’s seat to be vacant and therefore unlawfully appointed Yepez to fill it. We conclude that there are substantial issues of fact and law as to whether the City Council lawfully declared Khan’s former seat to be vacant and (as a result) whether the Council lawfully appointed Yepez to fill it. Consequently, and because the public interest will be served by allowing the proposed quo warranto action to proceed, we GRANT the application for leave to sue. 11/30/2023
23-302 1. Under state law, may an appointed public member of the City of San Diego Audit Committee concurrently serve as: (a) an appointed public member of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee; (b) an appointed public member of the SANDAG Audit Policy Advisory Committee; or (c) the Internal Auditor of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System?

2. Would the City Council of San Diego violate state law by appointing a member of the public to the City Audit Committee if doing so would result in the appointee holding incompatible public offices in violation of Government Code section 1099? 		1. As to (a) and (b), an appointed public member of the City Audit Committee may not serve concurrently as an appointed public member of either the SANDAG TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee or the SANDAG Audit Policy Advisory Committee. Such concurrent service would violate Government Code section 1099, which prohibits serving in legally incompatible public offices.

As to (c), an appointed public member of the City Audit Committee may serve concurrently as the Internal Auditor of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System without violating section 1099, because the Internal Auditor position is not a public office. Such concurrent service also would not violate Government Code section 1126’s prohibition against engaging in incompatible outside activities, unless the City Council determines that serving as the System’s Internal Auditor is inconsistent with the duties of a City Audit Committee member. Other state laws prohibiting financial and personal conflicts of interest would not prohibit the concurrent holding of these positions either. Those laws generally apply to particular government transactions or decisions, not the simultaneous holding of government positions, and, in any event, the request does not reference any type of financial or personal conflict.

2. No. The City Council would not violate state law by appointing a member of the public to the City Audit Committee if doing so would result in the appointee holding incompatible public offices in violation of Government Code section 1099. Although section 1099(b) provides that a public official who accepts a second, legally incompatible public office thereby forfeits the first office held, neither section 1099, nor any other authority we are aware of, provides that an appointing authority violates or is subject to any sanction under state law by making such an appointment. 		11/30/2023
23-203 The City of California City has applied to this office for leave to sue KAREN MACEDONIO in quo warranto to remove her from public office as a member of the City Council. The application asserts that Macedonio, while serving on the City Council, assumed a second and incompatible public office as a member of the East Kern Health Care District Board of Directors, in violation of Government Code section 1099, and by doing so forfeited her seat on the City Council. We conclude that there is a substantial legal issue as to whether Macedonio is simultaneously holding incompatible public offices. Consequently, and because the public interest will be served by allowing the proposed quo warranto action to proceed, the application for leave to sue is GRANTED.

Official Citation: 106 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 26 		05/18/2023
23-101 Do the disclosure, recusal, and cure provisions of Senate Bill No. 1439 (amending Government Code section 84308) apply to political contributions made before January 1, 2023?
No, the disclosure, recusal, and cure provisions of Senate Bill No. 1439 (amending Government Code section 84308) do not apply retroactively to political contributions made before January 1, 2023. 10/19/2023
22-1201 California wineries applying for a direct shipper license in another state are often required—pursuant to the other state’s alcohol control statutory or regulatory scheme—to provide a criminal record check in connection with that application. If a California winery owner or manager obtains their own criminal record check from the California Department of Justice, would furnishing that criminal record check—or a notification reflecting that no such record exists—to another state’s alcohol control agency violate California Penal Code sections 11125, 11142, or 11143? If a California winery owner or manager furnishes their criminal record—or notification no such record exists—to another state’s alcohol control agency, that would constitute a violation of California Penal Code sections 11125, 11142, or 11143. However, if the other state’s alcohol control agency obtains authorization from the California Department of Justice to receive California state summary criminal information, then the other state’s agency may request and receive the criminal background information directly from the California Department of Justice as specified in Penal Code section 11105. 11/09/2023
22-1101 SANDRIDGE PARTNERS, L.P. has applied to this office for leave to sue DAN BOSWELL, GABE COOPER, PHIL HANSEN, JIM RAZOR, DOMINIC SWEEN, MARK UNRUH, GEORGE WURZEL, JEOF WYRICK, and MICHAEL SULLIVAN in quo warranto to remove them from public office on the Board of Directors of the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District. The application asserts that the proposed defendants were appointed to and are serving on the Board in violation of multiple provisions of the Water Code. We conclude that there are substantial issues of law and fact as to whether the proposed defendants are lawfully holding office. We further conclude that the public interest will be served by allowing the proposed quo warranto action to proceed. Consequently, the application for leave to sue is GRANTED.

Official Citation: 106 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 14 		03/30/2023
22-1002 Proposed Relator City of Moreno Valley has applied for leave to sue proposed Defendant David Marquez in quo warranto to remove him from his seat on the Moreno Valley City Council. The City asserts that Marquez forfeited his office because he was “absent without permission from all regular city council meetings for 70 days consecutively from the last regular meeting” he attended, in violation of Government Code section 36513(b). We conclude that substantial questions of law and fact exist as to whether Marquez was absent without permission from all regular city council meetings for the period specified in Government Code section 36513(b) and, as a result, forfeited his seat on the council. We also conclude that the public interest will be served by allowing the proposed quo warranto action to proceed. For these reasons, the application for leave to sue is GRANTED.

Official Citation: 106 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 21 		05/18/2023
22-1001 The DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY has applied to this office for leave to sue DAVID ARGUDO in quo warranto to remove him from his public office as a member of the La Puente City Council. The application asserts that Argudo, while serving on the La Puente City Council, assumed a second and incompatible public office as a member of the La Puente Valley County Water District Board of Directors, in violation of Government Code section 1099, and by doing so forfeited his seat on the La Puente City Council. We conclude that there is a substantial legal issue as to whether Argudo is simultaneously holding incompatible public offices. Consequently, and because the public interest will be served by allowing the proposed quo warranto action to proceed, the application for leave to sue is GRANTED.

Official Citation: 106 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 10 		01/26/2023
22-803 LYNN BOONE applies to this office for leave to sue DEIDRE DUHART in quo warranto to remove Duhart from her public office as a member of the Compton City Council on the ground that Duhart did not receive the requisite number of votes under the Compton City Charter to be appointed to that office. As a separate matter, Boone alleges that the Compton City Attorney took certain improper and ultra vires actions in declaring Duhart’s appointment to be valid. We conclude that there is no substantial question of law regarding Duhart’s appointment to the City Council, and that it is therefore not in the public interest to authorize the proposed quo warranto action challenging her appointment. In addition, we conclude that the alleged actions of the Compton City Attorney in this matter do not give rise to an action in quo warranto. Consequently, the application for leave to sue is DENIED.

Official Citation: 106 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 1 		01/26/2023
22-701 1. Does Penal Code section 904.6 require a court to impanel a grand jury upon a district attorney’s request?

2. Do prosecutors’ disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 and Penal Code section 1054.1 encompass materials from criminal grand jury proceedings, despite the fact that those proceedings are conducted in secret? 		1. No. Penal Code section 904.6 provides that a court may impanel a grand jury upon a district attorney’s request, but does not require it.

2. Yes. Prosecutors’ disclosure obligations under Brady and Penal Code section 1054.1 encompass materials from criminal grand jury proceedings, despite the fact that those proceedings are conducted in secret. 		08/24/2023
22-602 May the Legislature enact a statute authorizing the State Bar of California to regulate non-attorney legal document assistants?

 Yes. The Legislature may enact a statute authorizing the State Bar to regulate legal document assistants.

Official Citation: 106 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 32 		05/25/2023