Municipal Law & Litigation

Cities, counties, school districts, special districts, public authorities, and other local government agencies exercise substantial authority over individuals, businesses, property, employment, contracts, public records, taxation, land use, licensing, and public services.

​

Government agencies must exercise that authority within constitutional, statutory, contractual, and procedural limits.

Municipal disputes can be unusually complex. Public entities may invoke statutory immunities, specialized claim requirements, administrative procedures, short filing deadlines, and defenses unavailable to private parties. Important decisions may be made through city councils, county boards, commissions, administrative hearing officers, department heads, or public employees operating under delegated authority.

​

The Westmoreland Law Firm represents individuals, businesses, public employees, contractors, property owners, community organizations, and other interested parties in disputes involving:

• Claims against cities, counties, and local public entities

• Municipal contracts

• Government payment disputes

• Public-employee discrimination and retaliation

• Whistleblower claims

• Civil-rights violations

• Police misconduct

• Dangerous conditions of public property

• California Public Records Act enforcement

• Brown Act and open-meeting disputes

• Administrative hearings and appeals

• Writs of mandate

• Land-use and zoning disputes

• Permit and licensing disputes

• Code-enforcement actions

• Public bidding and procurement disputes

• Local taxation, assessments, fees, and charges

• Constitutional challenges

• Election and ballot disputes

• Conflicts of interest and misuse of public authority

• Emergency injunctive and declaratory relief

 

Municipal litigation requires early identification of the responsible agency, governing statutes, administrative remedies, claim-presentation requirements, and applicable limitations periods.

​​

WHAT IS MUNICIPAL LAW?

Municipal law concerns the powers, duties, procedures, and liabilities of local government agencies and officials.

Local public entities may include:

• Charter cities

• General-law cities

• Counties

• School districts

• Community-college districts

• Water districts

• Sanitation districts

• Fire-protection districts

• Transit authorities

• Housing authorities

• Redevelopment successor agencies

• Joint-powers authorities

• Public hospitals

• Utility districts

• Airport authorities

• Other special districts and local agencies

 

Municipal disputes may involve both public law and ordinary civil claims. A matter involving a city may require analysis of:

• The California Constitution

• Government Code

• Code of Civil Procedure

• Public Contract Code

• Elections Code

• Labor Code

• Education Code

• Streets and Highways Code

• Health and Safety Code

• Local ordinances

• City or county charters

• Municipal codes

• Resolutions

• Administrative regulations

• Employment rules

• Collective-bargaining agreements

• Public contracts

• Federal constitutional and statutory law

 

The applicable law depends on the agency, disputed action, relief requested, and procedural posture.

​

CLAIMS AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITIES

California imposes specialized procedures on many claims for money or damages against public entities.

Before filing suit, a claimant may be required to present a written government claim to the correct public entity.

 

A government claim should generally identify:

• The claimant

• The claimant’s address

• The date and location of the occurrence

• The circumstances giving rise to the claim

• The injury, loss, or damage

• The public employees involved, when known

• The amount claimed when required

• The address for notices

 

The claim should provide enough information to allow the entity to investigate and evaluate the matter. A claimant should not assume that any of the following automatically satisfies the Government Claims Act:

• An internal complaint

• A police report

• A human-resources complaint

• An administrative grievance

• A demand letter

• A discrimination complaint

• A public-records request

• A complaint to an elected official

• A contractor invoice

• A lawsuit filed before claim presentation

• Informal communications with agency employees

 

Whether a claim is required depends on the causes of action and relief sought.​

 

GOVERNMENT-CLAIM DEADLINES

Claims involving death, personal injury, or injury to personal property generally must be presented within six months after accrual. Claims involving other causes of action generally must be presented within one year, subject to statutory exceptions.

 

After a public entity rejects a claim in writing, the claimant may have only six months from the mailing or personal delivery of a legally sufficient rejection notice to file suit.

 

Different rules may apply when:

• The entity fails to provide proper written notice

• The claim was presented late

• The claimant is a minor

• The claimant lacked capacity

• The claim involves contractual or equitable relief

• The claimant seeks a writ or declaratory relief rather than damages

• A statute creates a different procedure

• Federal claims are asserted

• The identity of the proper public entity was unclear

 

Filing an internal grievance, participating in settlement discussions, or waiting for an agency investigation does not necessarily extend the government-claim deadline.

​​

LATE-CLAIM APPLICATIONS

A person who misses the six-month claim deadline may, in qualifying circumstances, apply to the public entity for permission to present a late claim. The application generally must be submitted within a limited period and explain why the claim was not timely presented. Potential grounds may include:

• Mistake

• Inadvertence

• Surprise

• Excusable neglect

• Minority

• Physical or mental incapacity

• Death of the claimant

 

If the public entity denies the late-claim application, the claimant may be able to petition the superior court for relief.

Late-claim relief is not automatic. Delay can permanently bar otherwise valid California claims.

The late-claim process also does not replace compliance with the limitations period applicable after relief is granted.

 

PUBLIC-ENTITY LIABILITY AND IMMUNITIES

California public entities generally are liable only when a statute provides a basis for liability.

Potential statutory grounds may include:

• Vicarious liability for certain employee conduct

• Dangerous conditions of public property

• Breach of contract

• Employment statutes

• Civil-rights statutes

• Public-records laws

• Open-meeting laws

• Particular statutory duties

• Constitutional claims supporting authorized relief

 

Public entities and employees may assert immunities involving:

• Legislative activity

• Judicial and quasi-judicial conduct

• Discretionary decisions

• Permit and licensing decisions

• Inspection activities

• Failure to enforce laws

• Police and fire protection

• Natural conditions

• Recreational activities

• Misrepresentations

• Tax collection

• Other protected governmental functions

 

Immunity is claim-specific. The fact that one theory is barred does not necessarily eliminate every available claim.

The challenged conduct, responsible employee, statutory basis for liability, requested relief, and relationship between the conduct and asserted immunity must be examined carefully.​

 

VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CONDUCT

A public entity may be responsible for an injury caused by an employee acting within the scope of employment when the employee’s conduct would otherwise create civil liability and no applicable immunity bars the claim. Potential claims may involve:

• Negligent driving

• Assault or battery

• False arrest

• Negligent supervision

• Employment discrimination

• Retaliation

• Harassment

• Invasion of privacy

• Defamation

• Property damage

• Other tortious conduct

 

Whether an employee acted within the scope of employment may depend on:

• The employee’s assigned duties

• Whether the conduct was work-related

• The time and location

• Whether the conduct was reasonably foreseeable

• Whether the employee acted for personal reasons

• Whether the employer authorized, ratified, or benefited from the conduct

 

A public employee may also be sued individually in appropriate circumstances.

​​

DANGEROUS CONDITIONS OF PUBLIC PROPERTY

A public entity may be liable when a dangerous condition of its property creates a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury and the statutory requirements are satisfied. Potential dangerous conditions may involve:

• Defective sidewalks

• Potholes

• Dangerous intersections

• Malfunctioning traffic signals

• Missing or obstructed signs

• Inadequate roadway design

• Dangerous medians

• Unsafe crosswalks

• Poor lighting

• Defective public stairs

• Unsafe parks

• Dangerous playground equipment

• Public-building hazards

• Unsecured government property

• Flood-control failures

• Falling trees or branches

• Dangerous public-school property

• Defective public transportation facilities

 

A claimant may need to establish that:

• The public entity owned or controlled the property

• The property was in a dangerous condition

• The condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk

• The condition caused the injury

• A public employee negligently created the condition, or the entity had actual or constructive notice with sufficient time to take protective measures

 

Photographs, measurements, maintenance records, inspection records, prior complaints, prior incidents, work orders, design documents, and witness evidence should be preserved promptly.

​​

MUNICIPAL CONTRACT DISPUTES

Cities and other public entities enter into contracts involving:

• Professional services

• Construction

• Consulting

• Legal services

• Technology

• Public works

• Goods and equipment

• Real property

• Leases

• Grants

• Development projects

• Transportation

• Waste management

• Community programs

• Public-private partnerships

 

Municipal contract disputes may involve:

• Failure to pay

• Wrongful termination

• Unapproved change orders

• Scope disputes

• Delay claims

• Defective performance allegations

• Withheld retention

• Failure to appropriate funds

• Unauthorized agreements

• Procurement irregularities

• Violation of competitive-bidding laws

• Failure to obtain required council or board approval

• Disputes concerning renewal or extension

• Breach of settlement agreements

• Interference by public officials

• Misrepresentation during negotiation or performance

 

Public contracting differs from ordinary private contracting. Questions may arise concerning whether:

• The official who signed had authority

• Required approvals were obtained

• The agreement complied with bidding statutes

• Funds were appropriated

• The contract was properly memorialized

• The agency ratified performance

• The contractor complied with claim and notice provisions

• The agreement violated a charter, ordinance, or statute

• Equitable remedies are available

 

A contractor should not assume that informal assurances from an employee bind the public entity.

​

PUBLIC WORKS AND CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES

Public works disputes may concern:

• Bid protests

• Contractor responsibility

• Prevailing wages

• Change orders

• Delays

• Differing site conditions

• Stop notices

• Payment bonds

• Performance bonds

• Retention

• Liquidated damages

• Defective plans or specifications

• Extra work

• Subcontractor claims

• Project suspension

• Termination

• False Claims Act allegations

• Debarment or disqualification

 

Public contracts frequently contain strict notice, documentation, change-order, and administrative-claim requirements.

Failure to provide timely written notice may affect the ability to recover additional compensation. Project records should include:

• Daily reports

• Schedules

• Change directives

• Requests for information

• Submittals

• Photographs

• Cost records

• Labor and equipment records

• Communications

• Inspection reports

• Payment applications

• Delay analyses

• Meeting minutes

• Notices of disputed work

​​

PUBLIC BIDDING AND PROCUREMENT

Public procurement laws are intended to protect public funds, promote competition, prevent favoritism, and obtain the best value permitted by law. Disputes may involve:

• Improper bid specifications

• Nonresponsive bids

• Bidder responsibility

• Conflicts of interest

• Unequal treatment of bidders

• Unlawful sole-source awards

• Improper bid rejection

• Failure to follow scoring criteria

• Undisclosed evaluation factors

• Post-bid negotiations

• Improper waivers

• Bid protests

• Local preference requirements

• Disadvantaged-business requirements

• Contract awards made without required approval

 

A disappointed bidder may need to act immediately. Once a contract is awarded or performance begins, available remedies may become limited. Relief may include a writ of mandate, injunction, declaratory relief, or another remedy authorized by the applicable procurement law. Lost-profit damages may be unavailable or limited in certain public-bidding disputes.

​​

PUBLIC-EMPLOYEE DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT

Public employees are protected by federal and California employment laws. Potential claims may involve discrimination based on:

• Race

• Color

• National origin

• Ancestry

• Religion

• Sex

• Gender

• Gender identity or expression

• Sexual orientation

• Pregnancy

• Disability

• Medical condition

• Age

• Military or veteran status

• Marital status

• Other protected characteristics

 

Public-employment disputes may involve:

• Failure to hire

• Failure to promote

• Unequal pay

• Demotion

• Suspension

• Termination

• Harassment

• Hostile work environment

• Failure to accommodate

• Failure to engage in the interactive process

• Retaliation

• Denial of leave

• Discriminatory discipline

• Reassignment

• Loss of duties or opportunities

 

Public employees may also be subject to civil-service rules, memoranda of understanding, grievance procedures, Skelly rights, administrative hearings, and exhaustion requirements. The proper forum and sequence of proceedings should be determined before filing.

​

PUBLIC-EMPLOYEE WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION

Public employees may be protected when they disclose suspected violations of law, gross mismanagement, abuse of authority, waste, fraud, corruption, or threats to public safety. Retaliation may include:

• Termination

• Demotion

• Suspension

• Reassignment

• Reduction in duties

• Denial of promotion

• Negative evaluations

• Internal investigations

• Increased scrutiny

• Harassment

• Exclusion from meetings

• Loss of overtime or assignments

• Threats

• Blacklisting

• Disciplinary charges

 

Potential claims may arise under:

• California Labor Code

• Government Code whistleblower statutes

• The California Whistleblower Protection Act

• The False Claims Act

• Federal civil-rights law

• Employment-discrimination statutes

• Local ordinances

• Collective-bargaining agreements

• Civil-service rules

 

Some claims require exhaustion of administrative procedures. Others may proceed independently.

Employees should preserve the disclosure, recipients, supporting documents, timing, employer response, and evidence connecting the protected activity to the adverse action.​

 

CIVIL RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS

Municipalities and public officials may be sued for violations of federal or state constitutional rights. Potential claims may involve:

• Excessive force

• Unlawful arrest

• Unreasonable search or seizure

• First Amendment retaliation

• Discrimination

• Denial of due process

• Unequal treatment

• Fabrication of evidence

• Unconstitutional policies

• Interference with voting or petition rights

• Property deprivation without lawful procedure

• Retaliation for criticism of government

• Interference with public participation

• Abuse of licensing or code-enforcement authority

 

Under federal law, a municipality is not ordinarily liable merely because it employed the official involved. Municipal liability may require proof that a constitutional violation was caused by:

• An official policy

• A longstanding custom or practice

• A final policymaker’s decision

• Deliberately inadequate training

• Deliberately inadequate supervision or discipline

• Ratification of misconduct

• Repeated failure to address known violations

 

Potential evidence includes policies, training materials, prior complaints, prior lawsuits, disciplinary records, internal communications, statistical patterns, and policymaker decisions.

​​

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT

The California Public Records Act generally provides a right to inspect and obtain nonexempt records concerning the conduct of public business. Public records may include qualifying:

• Emails

• Text messages

• Contracts

• Payment records

• Invoices

• Reports

• Meeting materials

• Databases

• Audio recordings

• Video recordings

• Photographs

• Policies

• Investigation records

• Financial records

• Communications with contractors

• Records maintained on personal devices when they concern public business

 

A request should reasonably describe identifiable records. A requester is generally not required to explain why the records are sought. Agencies may withhold records or portions of records protected by specific exemptions, privileges, privacy rights, or the public-interest balancing provision. When only part of a record is exempt, the agency generally must produce reasonably segregable nonexempt portions.

 

PUBLIC-RECORDS DISPUTES

Public-records disputes may involve:

• Failure to timely determine whether records will be disclosed

• Excessive delay

• Repeated unexplained extensions

• Failure to conduct an adequate search

• Improper reliance on exemptions

• Overbroad redactions

• Failure to produce segregable portions

• Improper fees

• Refusal to provide records in an available electronic format

• Failure to search personal devices used for public business

• Withholding contractor records controlled by the agency

• Destruction of responsive records

• Incomplete rolling productions

• Failure to identify withheld records or explain the legal basis

• Improper “no responsive records” determinations

 

A requester may seek judicial relief through a verified petition. Available relief may include:

• An order requiring disclosure

• Review of withheld records

• Declaratory relief

• Injunctive relief

• Attorney’s fees and costs when authorized

 

Public-records litigation can proceed on an expedited basis, but the governing statutes contain specialized procedures and appellate rules.​

 

OPEN MEETINGS AND THE BROWN ACT

The Ralph M. Brown Act generally requires local legislative bodies to conduct their deliberations and actions openly.

 

The Act may apply to:

• City councils

• County boards of supervisors

• School boards

• Special-district boards

• Commissions

• Standing committees

• Certain advisory bodies

• Certain nonprofit entities created or controlled by public agencies

 

Potential violations may include:

• Secret meetings

• Serial communications involving a majority

• Inadequate agenda descriptions

• Action on nonagendized matters

• Improper closed sessions

• Failure to report action taken in closed session

• Denial of public-comment rights

• Meetings held in inaccessible locations

• Improper restrictions on criticism

• Private communications used to develop concurrence

• Failure to provide required documents

• Improper emergency findings

 

Not every communication between officials violates the Brown Act. The participants, sequence, content, and purpose of the communications must be evaluated.

​​

BROWN ACT REMEDIES

Depending on the alleged violation, a person may seek:

• Correction or cure

• A determination that an action is null and void

• Declaratory relief

• Injunctive relief

• An order preventing future violations

• Recovery of attorney’s fees and costs when authorized

 

Certain claims require a timely written demand that the agency cure or correct the challenged action before litigation.

Other claims may require a cease-and-desist demand concerning an alleged past practice.

Brown Act deadlines can be short. A person should not wait for the agency’s next meeting before evaluating available remedies.

​​

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Local agencies conduct administrative proceedings involving:

• Employee discipline

• Business licenses

• Professional permits

• Code violations

• Nuisance abatement

• Land-use entitlements

• Benefits

• Contract disputes

• Debarment

• Tax assessments

• Utility charges

• Police permits

• Cannabis licenses

• Rent-control matters

• Housing matters

• Environmental determinations

• Other regulatory decisions

 

Procedural rights may include:

• Adequate notice

• Disclosure of charges

• An opportunity to present evidence

• An opportunity to respond

• Cross-examination in appropriate proceedings

• An impartial decision-maker

• Findings supported by the record

• A written decision

• Administrative appeal rights

 

The administrative record is often critical. Evidence not presented during the administrative proceeding may be excluded or restricted during judicial review. A party should treat the administrative hearing as a significant litigation event rather than an informal preliminary step.

 

TRADITIONAL WRITS OF MANDATE

A traditional writ of mandate may be used to compel a public agency or official to perform a clear, present, and usually ministerial duty required by law. Potential writ matters may involve:

• Failure to perform a statutory duty

• Refusal to process an application

• Failure to disclose public records

• Failure to hold a required hearing

• Failure to place a matter on an agenda when legally required

• Refusal to recognize a legal entitlement

• Unlawful adoption of a policy

• Failure to comply with election duties

• Failure to follow required procedures

 

Traditional mandate generally cannot be used to compel an official to exercise discretion in a particular way unless the agency acted arbitrarily, unlawfully, or beyond the limits of its discretion.

​

ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS

Administrative mandamus is commonly used to challenge a final administrative decision resulting from a proceeding in which:

• A hearing was legally required

• Evidence was taken

• The agency had discretion to determine facts

 

Potential matters include:

• Public-employee discipline

• Permit revocation

• License denial

• Administrative penalties

• Land-use decisions

• Benefits determinations

• Professional discipline

• Code-enforcement decisions

 

Judicial review may examine whether:

• The agency acted without or beyond jurisdiction

• The agency provided a fair hearing

• The agency abused its discretion

• The findings support the decision

• The evidence supports the findings

• The agency followed required procedures

 

The applicable standard of review may depend on whether the decision substantially affects a fundamental vested right.

The petition deadline may be governed by a specialized statute and can be considerably shorter than an ordinary civil limitations period.

​​

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

A person generally must pursue and complete available administrative remedies before asking a court to intervene when the governing law requires exhaustion. This may include:

• Filing an administrative appeal

• Participating in a grievance procedure

• Requesting a hearing

• Presenting objections before the agency

• Raising issues during the administrative proceeding

• Appealing to a designated board or officer

• Obtaining a final agency decision

 

Failure to exhaust may prevent judicial review. Exceptions may apply when:

• The remedy is inadequate

• Pursuing it would be futile

• The agency lacks authority to grant meaningful relief

• Irreparable harm requires immediate intervention

• The challenge concerns the validity of the administrative process itself

• A statute creates a direct right of action

 

Futility is not established merely because the agency is expected to rule against the claimant.

​​

LAND-USE AND ZONING DISPUTES

Local agencies exercise significant authority over land development and property use. Disputes may involve:

• Zoning classifications

• Conditional-use permits

• Variances

• Development agreements

• Subdivision approvals

• Building permits

• General-plan consistency

• Density restrictions

• Housing approvals

• Historic-preservation rules

• Environmental review

• Coastal development

• Cannabis permits

• Sign regulations

• Short-term rentals

• Adult-use restrictions

• Religious land uses

• Group homes

• Affordable housing requirements

• Exactions and development fees

 

Potential claims may concern:

• Arbitrary denial

• Inconsistent treatment

• Failure to follow required procedures

• Lack of substantial evidence

• Unconstitutional conditions

• Regulatory takings

• Equal-protection violations

• Due-process violations

• Preemption by state law

• Housing-law violations

• Religious-discrimination claims

• Environmental noncompliance

 

Land-use disputes frequently involve strict administrative and judicial deadlines.​

 

REGULATORY TAKINGS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

Government regulation may affect property value or use without physically taking possession. A regulatory-takings claim may arise when government action:

• Denies all economically beneficial use

• Imposes a burden functionally equivalent to a direct appropriation

• Requires an unlawful dedication or exaction

• Causes a sufficiently severe interference with investment-backed expectations

• Conditions approval on surrender of property rights without the required connection and proportionality

 

Not every reduction in property value constitutes a taking. The analysis may consider:

• The regulation’s economic impact

• Reasonable investment-backed expectations

• The character of the government action

• Available uses of the property

• Development history

• Permit applications

• Administrative remedies

• The nature of any demanded easement, fee, or dedication

 

Some takings claims require a final government decision before litigation is ripe.

​​

CODE ENFORCEMENT AND NUISANCE ABATEMENT

Cities and counties may enforce building, zoning, health, safety, housing, and nuisance laws. Code-enforcement disputes may involve:

• Inspection warrants

• Administrative citations

• Daily penalties

• Abatement orders

• Receiverships

• Building closures

• Demolition orders

• Substandard-housing allegations

• Unpermitted construction

• Zoning violations

• Business-use violations

• Vehicle or property storage

• Weed and fire hazards

• Short-term rental enforcement

• Cannabis enforcement

• Liens and special assessments

 

Property owners and occupants may have rights to notice, a hearing, administrative appeal, and judicial review. Potential defenses may include:

• Lack of notice

• Incorrect property identification

• Compliance

• Selective enforcement

• Unreasonable penalties

• Lack of substantial evidence

• Constitutional violations

• Failure to follow local procedures

• Statutory preemption

• Agency delay or estoppel in limited circumstances

 

Ignoring a notice may result in escalating penalties, liens, receivership proceedings, or loss of appeal rights.

 

PERMITS AND BUSINESS LICENSES

Municipalities regulate businesses through permits, licenses, zoning approvals, and operational conditions. Disputes may concern:

• Denial of an application

• Delay in processing

• Revocation

• Suspension

• Discriminatory enforcement

• Unlawful conditions

• Inconsistent treatment

• First Amendment activity

• Due-process violations

• Failure to provide a hearing

• Conflict with state law

• Vague or overbroad standards

• Retaliation for protected conduct

• Improper fees

 

Applicants should preserve:

• Applications

• Supporting documents

• Agency communications

• Staff reports

• Hearing notices

• Audio or video of hearings

• Written decisions

• Comparable approvals

• Inspection records

• Appeal documents

 

The written administrative record may determine whether a later court challenge succeeds.​

 

TAXES, ASSESSMENTS, FEES, AND CHARGES

Local governments may impose:

• Taxes

• Assessments

• Utility rates

• Development-impact fees

• User fees

• Licensing fees

• Inspection charges

• Special assessments

• Administrative penalties

• Service charges

 

Challenges may involve:

• Lack of voter approval

• Improper classification of a tax as a fee

• Failure to comply with procedural requirements

• Disproportionate assessments

• Charges exceeding the cost of service

• Unlawful use of revenue

• Improper notice or hearing procedures

• Constitutional violations

• Refund claims

 

Tax and fee disputes often require exhaustion of a refund or administrative process before litigation. The governing deadlines may be short, and payment under protest may be required in some circumstances.

​

MUNICIPAL ELECTION AND BALLOT DISPUTES

Municipal election disputes may involve:

• Candidate eligibility

• Nomination documents

• Ballot designations

• Ballot statements

• Initiative petitions

• Referendum petitions

• Recall proceedings

• Measure language

• Election materials

• Signature verification

• Campaign disclosures

• District boundaries

• Voting-rights claims

• Election administration

• Certification of results

 

Election litigation moves rapidly because ballots must be printed and elections occur on fixed dates.

Potential remedies may require emergency writ or injunctive proceedings. A party should act immediately after discovering an alleged election error. Ordinary litigation timing may be inadequate to prevent the issue from becoming moot.

​​

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND PUBLIC CORRUPTION

Local officials and employees are subject to laws governing conflicts of interest, financial interests, incompatible activities, gifts, and misuse of public office. Potential disputes may involve:

• Participation in contracts involving a financial interest

• Self-dealing

• Undisclosed gifts

• Preferential treatment

• Misuse of public funds

• Nepotism

• Improper influence over procurement

• Use of confidential government information

• Steering work to favored businesses

• Retaliation against employees who report misconduct

• Failure to disclose economic interests

• Decisions benefiting officials, relatives, or affiliated entities

 

Potential remedies may include:

• Invalidating a contract

• Injunctive relief

• Mandamus

• Administrative enforcement

• Civil penalties

• Disqualification

• Recovery of public funds

• Criminal referral in appropriate circumstances

 

Allegations of corruption should be supported by evidence. Political disagreement or an unfavorable vote does not by itself establish an unlawful conflict.​

 

MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS

Taxpayer litigation may be available to prevent or challenge illegal expenditures, waste, or injury to public funds or property. Potential matters may involve:

• Unauthorized payments

• Illegal contracts

• Improper compensation

• Misuse of government property

• Unlawful subsidies

• Payments made without required approval

• Expenditures for private purposes

• Failure to follow competitive-bidding requirements

• Conflicted transactions

• Diversion of restricted funds

 

Standing, pre-suit demands, limitations periods, and available remedies depend on the legal theory and public entity involved. A court may distinguish between an allegedly illegal expenditure and a policy decision committed to lawful agency discretion.

​​

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

A party may seek declaratory relief to obtain a judicial determination concerning rights or duties under:

• A statute

• Ordinance

• Contract

• Charter

• Regulation

• Permit

• Resolution

• Government policy

• Constitutional provision

 

Injunctive relief may be used to prevent threatened or continuing unlawful conduct. Potential injunctions may seek to:

• Stop enforcement of an invalid ordinance

• Prevent an unlawful contract award

• Preserve public records

• Stop destruction of evidence

• Prevent an unauthorized property transfer

• Halt an unlawful disciplinary action

• Prevent enforcement of an unconstitutional policy

• Preserve the status quo during writ proceedings

• Stop an unlawful meeting practice

• Prevent irreparable land-use harm

 

The requesting party generally must establish more than a past violation. The evidence should demonstrate an actual controversy or threatened continuing harm.​

 

EMERGENCY RELIEF AGAINST A PUBLIC ENTITY

Emergency proceedings may be necessary when delay would cause irreparable harm. Potential emergency matters include:

• Imminent demolition

• License revocation

• Contract award

• Employee termination

• Election deadlines

• Destruction of records

• Sale of public property

• Closure of a business

• Enforcement of an unconstitutional ordinance

• Denial of ballot access

• Immediate land-use activity

• Dissipation of disputed funds

 

Emergency relief is not automatic. The applicant generally must establish:

• A likelihood of prevailing

• Immediate and irreparable harm

• Inadequacy of ordinary legal remedies

• A favorable balance of hardships

• Compliance with notice and procedural requirements

 

Courts may also consider the public interest and potential interference with government operations.​

​

WHAT EVIDENCE SHOULD BE PRESERVED?

Municipal disputes frequently depend on administrative and public records. Relevant evidence may include:

• Government claims

• Claim rejection notices

• Contracts

• Resolutions

• Ordinances

• Staff reports

• Meeting agendas

• Meeting minutes

• Audio and video recordings

• Public comments

• Emails

• Text messages

• Public-records requests

• Agency responses

• Administrative hearing records

• Notices of violation

• Permit applications

• Inspection reports

• Employment records

• Disciplinary notices

• Grievances

• Policies and procedures

• Procurement records

• Bid documents

• Payment records

• Invoices

• Change orders

• Property records

• Photographs and videos

• Witness information

• Communications with elected officials and employees

• Social-media posts concerning public business

• Metadata and electronically stored information

 

Documents submitted to an agency should be retained in the form submitted, together with proof of delivery.

Administrative hearings should be recorded when legally permitted, and all exhibits should be included in the official record.​

 

HOW LONG DOES A PERSON HAVE TO ACT?

Municipal disputes do not share a single limitations period. Potential deadlines include:

• Six months to present certain government claims

• One year to present certain other government claims

• Six months to sue after a legally sufficient written rejection of a government claim

• Short deadlines for administrative appeals

• Specialized deadlines for writ petitions

• Short cure-and-correct periods under open-meeting laws

• Election deadlines measured in days

• Contractual notice periods

• Public-works claim deadlines

• Tax-refund procedures

• Land-use statutes of limitation

• Employment administrative deadlines

• Federal civil-rights limitations periods

 

A claim may be barred even while the parties are:

• Negotiating

• Participating in an internal investigation

• Waiting for public records

• Pursuing a grievance

• Appealing informally to elected officials

• Discussing settlement

• Waiting for the agency to reconsider

• Performing under a disputed contract

 

Prompt identification of every applicable deadline is essential.

​​

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Can I sue a city the same way I would sue a private company?

Not always. Claims against public entities may require statutory authorization, government-claim presentation, administrative exhaustion, and compliance with specialized deadlines and immunities.

​

Do I need to file a government claim before every lawsuit against a city?

No. The requirement generally applies to claims for money or damages, subject to statutory exceptions. Certain federal claims, writ proceedings, public-records actions, and claims for purely equitable relief may follow different procedures.

The specific causes of action and requested relief must be evaluated.

​

Is an email to the city enough to constitute a government claim?

Not necessarily. A communication may qualify only if it substantially complies with the statutory content and presentation requirements and clearly indicates an intent to seek compensation from the public entity.

​

What happens if the city never responds to my claim?

A claim may be deemed rejected by operation of law after the statutory period. The deadline for filing suit may differ depending on whether the entity issued a proper written rejection notice.

​

Can a city be sued for an employee’s conduct?

Potentially. A public entity may be vicariously liable for certain employee conduct within the scope of employment, subject to statutory requirements and immunities.

​

Can a city be sued for breach of contract?

Yes, when an enforceable public contract exists and the procedural requirements are satisfied. Authority, approval, appropriation, bidding requirements, and contract-claim provisions may be important.

 

Can an oral promise by a city employee bind the city?

Often not. Public contracts may require formal approval, written execution, and compliance with statutes, charters, ordinances, or procurement rules. Apparent authority principles may be limited when dealing with public agencies.

 

Can a public employee bring discrimination or retaliation claims?

Yes. Public employees may have rights under employment statutes, whistleblower laws, civil-service rules, collective-bargaining agreements, and constitutional law. Administrative exhaustion may be required for certain claims.

 

Can I obtain a public official’s text messages?

Potentially. Messages concerning public business may qualify as public records even when transmitted through a personal device or account. Privacy, privilege, and other exemptions may affect production.

 

Can an agency charge for searching for records?

Ordinary search and review costs generally cannot automatically be shifted to a requester. Agencies may charge authorized duplication costs and certain specialized electronic-production expenses.

 

Can a city council discuss public business privately?

The Brown Act restricts meetings and serial communications involving a majority of a local legislative body. Particular exceptions apply, including authorized closed sessions.

 

Is every closed session unlawful?

No. Closed sessions are permitted for specified matters, including certain litigation, labor, real-property, public-security, and personnel issues. The agenda and discussion must remain within statutory authority.

 

Can a court overturn an administrative decision?

Potentially. Judicial review may be available through administrative mandamus or another statutory procedure. The court generally reviews the agency’s jurisdiction, procedure, findings, evidence, and exercise of discretion under the applicable standard.

 

Can I introduce new evidence during a writ proceeding?

Sometimes, but judicial review is often limited to the administrative record. A party should present all available evidence and legal objections during the administrative proceedings.

​

Can a city revoke a permit without a hearing?

The answer depends on the permit, governing ordinance, property interest, urgency, and available post-deprivation procedures. Due process may require notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond.

 

Can I sue over discriminatory code enforcement?

Potentially. Selective enforcement may support constitutional or statutory claims when similarly situated persons were treated differently for an unlawful reason or without a rational basis under the applicable standard.

 

Can a contractor recover for extra work without a signed change order?

Potentially, but public contracts frequently impose strict written change-order and notice requirements. The agency’s authority, conduct, emergency circumstances, contract language, and applicable law must be reviewed.

 

Can a bidder recover lost profits after an improper contract award?

Lost-profit recovery may be limited or unavailable. A disappointed bidder’s principal remedy may be prompt writ or injunctive relief before performance begins.

 

Can attorney’s fees be recovered from a city?

Potentially, when authorized by statute, contract, civil-rights law, public-records law, open-meeting law, or private-attorney-general principles.

 

Can a municipality be required to change an unlawful policy?

Potentially. Declaratory, injunctive, and writ relief may be available to invalidate or prevent enforcement of unlawful municipal policies and practices.​

 

HOW THE WESTMORELAND LAW FIRM CAN HELP

Municipal litigation requires knowledge of public-entity liability, administrative procedure, constitutional law, government contracts, public records, employment law, and specialized statutory deadlines.

 

The Westmoreland Law Firm can:

• Identify the correct public entity and responsible officials

• Evaluate statutory bases for public-entity liability

• Analyze potential immunities

• Prepare and present government claims

• Evaluate late-claim relief

• Pursue municipal contract and payment disputes

• Analyze public bidding and procurement challenges

• Represent public employees in discrimination and retaliation matters

• Pursue whistleblower claims

• Litigate civil-rights and constitutional violations

• Investigate dangerous conditions of public property

• Prepare California Public Records Act requests

• Challenge unlawful withholding of public records

• Analyze Brown Act violations

• Prepare cure-and-correct or cease-and-desist demands

• Represent parties in administrative hearings

• Build and preserve the administrative record

• Pursue traditional and administrative writ proceedings

• Challenge permit, licensing, zoning, and code-enforcement decisions

• Analyze local taxes, assessments, fees, and charges

• Pursue declaratory and injunctive relief

• Address conflicts of interest and misuse of public funds

• Preserve government emails, texts, video, and electronic records

• Coordinate public-law claims with related federal and state causes of action

• Prepare matters for negotiation, mediation, administrative hearing, writ review, or trial

 

Our approach focuses on identifying the government action at issue, the source and limit of the agency’s authority, the correct procedural vehicle, and the relief necessary to protect the client’s rights.

 

This page provides general information concerning federal and California law and is not legal advice. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. Government-claim requirements, administrative remedies, immunities, writ procedures, filing deadlines, available defendants, and remedies depend on the public entity, challenged conduct, and specific facts of each matter.