People v. City of Palo Alto

321 Cal.Rptr.3d 670

The PEOPLE EX REL. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 1319, AFL-CIO, Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.CITY OF PALO ALTO, Defendant and Respondent.

H049992

Court of Appeal, Sixth District.

Filed June 3, 2024

Trial Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court, Trial Judge: Hon. Cynthia C. Lie (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 20CV365039)

Counsel for Plaintiff and Appellant The People ex rel. IAFF, Local 1319, AFL-CIO: Kathleen Natalina Storm, Sacramento, Mastagni Holstedt A.P.C.

Counsel for Amicus Curiae Peace Officers Research Association of California and Peace Officers Research Association of California Legal Defense Fund on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant: Brandi L. Harper, Kasey A. Castillo, Riverside, Montana L. Massone, Rancho Cucamonga, Castillo Harper

Counsel for Amicus Curiae Oakland Police Officers’ Association, International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 55, AFL-CIO, San Francisco Police Officers’ Association, International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 798, AFL-CIO and Palo Alto Police Officers’ Association on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant: Zachary A. Lopes, Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC, Michael A. McGill, Upland, Ferrone & Ferrone Law Group

Counsel for Amicus Curiae Public Employment Relations Board on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant: J. Felix De La Torre, Wendi L. Ross, Sacramento, Daniel M. Trump, Public Employment Relations Board

Counsel for Amicus Curiae California Professional Firefighters Association on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant: Muna Busailah, Pasadena, Stone Busailah, LLP

Counsel for Amicus Curiae International Association of Fire Fighters on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant: Art Traynor, Mark Murphy, San Ramon, Tamara Imam, Mooney, Green, Saindon, Murphy & Welch, P.C.

Counsel Respondent City of Palo Alto: Charles D. Sakai, San Francisco, Eric F. Della Santa, Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong LLP

Danner, J.

The question presented in this appeal is whether a successful challenge to a municipal charter provision, brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 803 (commonly referred to as a proceeding in quo warranto), requires invalidation of the provision. On these facts, we answer that question in the affirmative. We therefore reverse the judgment and remand with directions.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case returns to us a second time. In our previous opinion, we set out its factual and procedural background. (City of Palo Alto v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1271, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 287 (City of Palo Alto).) We describe here only pertinent details and subsequent proceedings.

A. Overview

In 2010 and 2011, the City of Palo Alto (city) faced a budget crisis. To reduce its labor costs, the city council contemplated altering a provision in its city charter that required submission of certain labor disputes with its public safety unions to binding interest arbitration. (Charter of the City of Palo Alto, former art. V., § 4 (article V).) The city believed Government Code section 3507¹ of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) did not require prior good faith consultation with its public safety unions. (City of Palo Alto, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1279–1280, 211 Cal. Rptr.3d 287.)

In July 2011, the city council adopted resolution 9189, proposing to city voters an amendment to the city charter to repeal article V and replace it with other dispute resolution procedures. (Palo Alto Res. No. 9189 (resolution 9189).) Pursuant to this resolution, the city held a special election in November 2011 in which its voters passed "Measure D," which repealed the binding interest arbitration provision from the city charter. (City of Palo Alto, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 1285, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 287.)

It has since become clear that the city erred in its interpretation of the MMBA. In subsequent litigation initiated by the city’s firefighters’ union, International Association of Firefighters, Local 1319, AFL-CIO (Local 1319), both the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) and this court concluded the city violated section 3507 by enacting resolution 9189 and submitting Measure D to the voters without having previously engaged in good faith consultation with Local 1319. (See International Assn. of Firefighters, Local 1319 v. City of Palo Alto (PERB City of Palo Alto I) (2014) PERB Dec. No. 2388M [39 PERC ¶ 25, pp. 3–4]; City of Palo Alto, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 1292, 211 Cal. Rptr.3d 287, International Assn. of Firefighters, Local 1319 v. City of Palo Alto (PERB City of Palo Alto II) (2017) PERB Decision No. 2388a-M [41 PERC ¶ 162, p. 2].)

While the city’s violation of the MMBA has now been established, the appropriate remedy has not. In its original administrative decision, PERB ordered the city council to rescind resolution 9189. (PERB City of Palo Alto I, supra, Dec. No. 2388-M at p. 49 [39 PERC ¶ 25]; City of Palo Alto, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1310–1311, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 287.) On appeal, this court affirmed PERB’s decision that the city had violated the MMBA but disapproved of PERB’s ordered remedy. (City of Palo Alto, at p. 1278, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 287.) This court decided PERB’s rescission order violated the separation of powers doctrine but concluded PERB may invalidate resolution 9189 by declaring it void. (Id. at p. 1316, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 287.) This court remanded the matter to PERB to determine whether to do so. (Id. at p. 1320, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 287.)

On remand, PERB reaffirmed its conclusion that the city had violated the MMBA in enacting resolution 9189. (PERB City of Palo Alto II, supra, Dec. No. 2388a-M at p. 44 [41 PERC ¶ 162].) PERB issued an order that declared resolution 9189 void. (Id. at p. 53.) PERB also directed the city to meet and consult with representatives of Local 1319 upon request. (Id. at p. 54.)

Despite PERB’s order that resolution 9189 was void, the city took no steps to restore article V as it existed prior to its amendment by Measure D. To directly challenge Measure D, Local 1319 sought authorization from the Attorney General to bring a quo warranto action. The Attorney General granted Local 1319 leave to sue in quo warranto "to determine whether City of Palo Alto Measure D is invalid." (103 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 1, 4 (2020).) The substantive relief requested by the complaint approved and signed by the Attorney General is a judgment determining Measure D to be "null and void" and restoring the preamendment portion of article V.

The trial court decided in the quo warranto proceedings that the city violated the MMBA in enacting resolution 9189. However, the trial court did not declare Measure D invalid. Balancing a variety of factors, including "the clearly expressed will of the local electorate," the trial court issued a multi-step order that suspends the operation of the charter’s current dispute resolution procedures, requires good faith consultation between the city and the public safety unions on the subject, and retains jurisdiction with the possibility of a future finding of invalidity of Measure D.

B. This Court’s Prior Opinion

In its prior opinion, this court agreed with PERB that the city failed to meet its obligation to consult in good faith before adopting resolution 9189 and in so doing violated section 3507. (City of Palo Alto, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 1292, 211 Cal. Rptr.3d 287.) This court also rejected the city’s contention that PERB’s decision that the city violated section 3507 should not be "retroactively applied, because it … would unfairly disenfranchise the City’s voters." (Id. at p. 1300, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 287.) The decision deemed unpersuasive the city’s citation to cases in which courts elected not to invalidate electoral decisions based on procedural irregularities. It noted, PERB’s decision "clarified that its remedial authority did not extend to invalidating the results of the municipal election. That remedy lies exclusively with the courts in an action in quo warranto." (Id. at p. 1301, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 287.)

This court decided that PERB lacked the authority to direct the city council to rescind a resolution because, "as a quasijudicial agency[, it] cannot compel legislative action without violating the separation of powers doctrine." (City of Palo Alto, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1310–1311, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 287.) Nevertheless, this court decided it would be within PERB’s powers to declare the resolution to be void, which "effectively returns the parties to the status quo ante. [Citations.] It has the affir-

@@ mative effect of ‘undoing’ the invalid act without impermissibly infringing on legislative powers." (Id. at p. 1317, 211 Cal. Rptr.3d 287.)

Noting under section 3509, subdivision (b), " ‘The initial determination as to whether the charge of unfair practice is justified and, if so, the appropriate remedy necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, shall be a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the board … ’," this court remanded the matter to PERB so that it may determine whether this remedy should be ordered. (City of Palo Alto, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 1320, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 287.)

B. 2017 PERB Decision

Following this court’s decision, PERB vacated its previous decision and issued new Decision No. 2388a-M. (PERB City of Palo Alto II, supra, Dec. No. 2388a-M [41 PERC ¶ 162].)

PERB concluded that the city "violated the MMBA by: (1) failing or refusing to perform its duty under section 3507 to consult in good faith over rules and regulations for the administration of employer-employee relations, in particular, interest arbitration procedures for the resolution of collective bargaining disputes, and (2) having failed to consult in good faith beforehand, placing on the ballot an amendment to the Charter to repeal [a]rticle V thereof." (PERB City of Palo Alto II, supra, Dec. No. 2388a-M at pp. 48–49 [41 PERC ¶ 162].)

With respect to remedy, PERB stated, "Our traditional remedy in a unilateral change case is a cease and desist order, coupled...