Legal Opinions of the Attorney General -
Yearly Index

Opinions published in 2023

Opinion Question Conclusion(s) Issued
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. 03/30/2023
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