Skip to content

Judicial Watch • 2011 sturgeon-v-la-rep2ans2pet4review-03072011

2011 sturgeon-v-la-rep2ans2pet4review-03072011

2011 sturgeon-v-la-rep2ans2pet4review-03072011

Page 1: 2011 sturgeon-v-la-rep2ans2pet4review-03072011

Category:Obtained Document

Number of Pages:18

Date Created:March 10, 2011

Date Uploaded to the Library:July 30, 2013

Tags:important, Budget, question, appeal, grant, Street, Council, senate, review, trial, Counsel, service, policy, document, section, plaintiff, watch, committee, State, judicial, Supreme Court, Washington, court, EPA, IRS, ICE, CIA


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

S190318 THE SUPREME COURT THE STATE CALIFORNIA 
HAROLD STURGEON, Plaintiff and Petitioner, 
COUNTY LOS ANGELES, al., Defendants and Respondents, 
and 

SUPERIOR COURT CALIFORNIA, 
COUNTY LOS ANGELES, 
Intervenor and Respondent. 

After Decision the Court Appeal 
Fourth Appellate District, Division One 
Case No. D056266 

REPLY BRIEF PETITIONER 
Sterling Norris (SBN 040993) 
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 
2540 Huntington Drive, Suite 201 
San Marino, 91108-2601 
Tel: (626) 287-4540 
Fax: (626)237-2003 

Counsel for Plaintiff and Petitioner Harold Sturgeon 

TABLE CONTENTS 

INTROD.UCTION
........................................................................ ....... 

ARGUMENT
........................................................................................ 	THE COURT SHOULD GRANT REVIEW SETTLE THE IMPORTANT QUESTION WHETHER SENATE BILL VALID DELEGATION THE LEGISLATURE'S CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY PRESCRIBE THE COMPENSATION STATE TRIAL 
COURT JUDGES ....................... ..... ................. ............... 	THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT REVIEW SETTLE THE IMPORTANT QUESTION WHETHER SENATE BILL VIOLATES 
EQUAL PROTECTION ......................... ........ ................. 	THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT REVIEW SETTLE THE IMPORTANT QUESTION WHETHER SENATE BILL VIOLATES ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3(b) THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
.............................. .... 

CONCLUSION
.............................. .................................................. ..... 

CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE 

TABLE AUTHORITIES 

Cases 
Kugler Yocum, Cal.2d 371 (1968) ........................................... Martin Riley, Cal.2d (1942) .................................................... Sturgeon County Los Angeles, 
191 Cal. App. 4th 344 (2010) ............................................... 

Sturgeon County Los Angeles, 167 Cal. App. 4th 630 (2008) ............................................ passim 
Constitutional Provisions 
Cal. Const. art. IV,  3(b) ..................................................................... 
Cal. Const. art. VI,  .................................................................... 

Other Authorities 
Judicial Council California, "Historical Analysis Disparities Judicial Benefits," Report the Senate Committee Budget and Fiscal Review, the Assembly Committee Budget, and the Senate Assembly Committees Judiciary, 
December 19, 2009 ................................................................. 

INTRODUCTION 

Respondents' attempt portray Petitioner's lawsuit inconsequential policy disagreement with the Legislature could not further from the truth. Petitioner demonstrated his opening brief, the Legislature made fundamental policy choice when enacted Senate Bill 11. Rather, merely rubberstamped the status quo that existed prior the appellate court's ruling Sturgeon County Los Angeles, 167 Cal. App. 4th 630 (2008) ("Sturgeon I") --a status quo that the Judicial Council California ("Judicial Council") has described "hodgepodge," "patchwork quilt" "inconsistent and fundamentally unequal judicial benefits that the result the individual history each court and county rather than any rational consistent statewide plan formula." The issue judicial compensation such obvious importance, not only the County Los Angeles but throughout the State California, that, after this Court declined review the appellate court's ruling Sturgeon Respondents lobbied the Legislature restore their supplemental benefits during previously-called extraordinary session the Legislature, and the Legislature purported enacting Senate Bill 11. addition, the Legislature also 
directed the Judicial Council analyze what characterized 

"statewide benefits inconsistencies" and report back it. Not only did the Judicial Council prepare extensive, compelling report about the substantial disparities existing judicial benefits, but apparently plans issue second, follow-up report. Obviously, such substantial attention would not afforded matter that was not important. Because Petitioner's lawsuit thus raises issues substantial public importance, and because extremely unlikely that, without action this Court, the Legislature will ever remedy the enormous disparities judicial benefits identified the Judicial Council, the petition for review should granted. 

ARGUMENT 	THE COURT SHOULD GRANT REVIEW SETTLE THE IMPORTANT QUESTION WHETHER SENATE BILL X211 VALID DELEGATION THE LEGISLATURE'S CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY PRESCRIBE THE COMPENSATION STATE TRIAL COURT JUDGES. 
Respondents not rebut Petitioner's argument that, order satisfy the requirements article VI, section the California Constitution, the Legislature was required, minimum, make fundamental policy choice and establish meaningful safeguards ensure that its fundamental policy choice carried out. Kugler Yocum, Cal.2d 371, 375-76 (1968). "This doctrine rests upon the premise that the legislative body must itself effectively resolve the truly fundamental issues." Id. 376. "It cannot escape responsibility explicitly delegating that function others failing establish effective mechanism assure the proper implementation its policy decision." Id. 376-77. his opening brief, Petitioner demonstrated that, rather than constituting fundamental policy choice, Senate Bill merely rubberstamps "significant compensation differences" that are "not based any rational consistent statewide plan formula," but instead are 

based the historical choice each individual county court. Judicial Council California, "Historical Analysis Disparities Judicial Benefits," Report the Senate Committee Budget and Fiscal Review, the Assembly Committee Budget, and the Senate Assembly Committees Judiciary, December 19, 2009 ("Judicial 
Council Report") and 17. Thus, based mere happenstance, Senate Bill purportedly authorizes the County Los Angeles pay trial judges the County Los Angeles nearly $50,000 supplemental 
benefits, while trial judges many other counties, well all appellate court judges the County Los Angeles and across the State and all the justices this Court, receive supplemental benefits all. Instead making fundamental policy choice, Senate Bill merely adopts the pre-Sturgeon status quo. 
Respondents' only retort this obvious abrogation the Legislature's duty prescribe judicial compensation that adopting the pre-Sturgeon status quo each the fifty-eight counties California its own policy choice. The Legislature's purported "solution" the appellate court's ruling Sturgeon however, does not resolve the "truly 
fundamental issue," which establishing the level total compensation 

received all judges the court record across the State. Kugler, Cal.2d 376. Respondents' acknowledgment that Senate Bill only temporary, interim measure concedes much. See, e.g., Sturgeon County Los Angeles, 191 Cal. App. 4th 344, 355 (2010) ("Sturgeon II"). 
Nor does Senate Bill contain meaningful safeguards ensure that any fundamental policy choice the Legislature being carried out. its brief, Respondent Superior Court California, County Los Angeles admits, for the first time, that Senate Bill "does not mandate any freeze the amount supplemental benefits" paid the County Los Angeles trial judges the County Los
Angeles.Superior Court California, County Los Angeles' Answer Petition for Review n.2 (emphasis original). Thus, under Senate Bill 11, the dollar value the supplemental benefits paid the County Los Angeles state trial judges within the County Los Angeles can continue increase, while the dollar value supplemental 

Contrary Respondent's claim, Petitioner has consistently made this argument this litigation since the enactment Senate Bill 11. See Sturgeon Appellant's Opening Brief 17-20 and Sturgeon Reply Brief Appellant 
benefits paid state trial judges counties where supplemental benefits 

were fixed particular level must continue remain fixed that level and trial judges counties where supplemental benefits were paid must continue receive supplemental benefits. simply impossible identify any meaningful safeguards Senate Bill that protect fundamental policy choice the Legislature when the statute allows the County Los Angeles continue increase the total compensation package received state trial judges the County Los Angeles without any oversight the Legislature. 
Article VI, section and the non-delegation doctrine not allow the Legislature vest such unbridled authority the County Los Angeles. The Legislature either must set judicial compensation itself, must make fundamental policy choice, delegate responsibility for carrying out that choice, and provide safeguards ensure that its fundamental choice being executed. enacting Senate Bill 11, measure that rubberstamps the historical and geographic anomalies supplemental judicial benefits that existed the time Sturgeon and allows the County Los Angeles continue increase the total compensation package paid state trial judges the County Los Angeles without any oversight the Legislature, did neither. Consequently, the Court should grant review settle this issue substantial, not vital, importance the maintenance "strong, fair and impartial judicial branch." Judicial Council Report 	THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT REVIEW SETTLE THE IMPORTANT QUESTION WHETHER SENATE BILL VIOLATES EQUAL PROTECTION. 
Similarly, Respondents not even try rebut the Judicial Council's finding that the substantial disparities judicial benefits that exist across the State are the result "the individual history each court and county" and are "not based any rational consistent statewide plan." Judicial Council Report Regardless whether given strict scrutiny analyzed under rational basis test, Senate Bill enshrines these irrational, historical disparities into law. establishes and perpetuates classifications state trial court judges --all whom are state officials employed otherwise identical capacities --based whether the county court which they happen sit were paying supplemental benefits the time that the appellate court Sturgeon found the County's payment supplemental benefits unconstitutional. 
There simply rational basis, much less compelling reason, 

for the Legislature differentiate between state trial court judges this unequal manner. Nor does the reliance some state trial court judges primarily those the County Los Angeles -on previously unlawful supplemental benefits justify denying other state trial court judges similar benefits. Obviously, the Legislature wanted enact some form "locality pay" provide additional compensation attract and retain well-qualified state trial court judges who serve high-cost areas, could so. But freeze place system that based nothing more than irrational, historical anomalies and whether supplemental benefits were being paid the time that the appellate court Sturgeon declared the County's payment supplemental benefits unconstitutional violates equal protection. Having taken the issue supplemental benefits, equal protection required the Legislature devise system -even one that only temporary -that, minimum, both rationally related some governmental purpose and fair all judges across the State. The Court should grant review settle this additional, obviously important question. 

THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT REVIEW SETTLE THE IMPORTANT QUESTION WHETHER SENATE BILL VIOLATES ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3(b) THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. 
Finally, this Court should grant review decide whether Senate Bill violates article IV, section 3(b) the California Constitution. Only construing the terms the Governor's December 2008 proclamation beyond all natural, ordinary, reasonable meaning could the proclamation found embrace legislation addressing the appellate court's ruling Sturgeon Doing not only odds with this Court's long-established precedent (e.g., Martin Riley, Cal.2d (1942)), but also effectively eliminates any limitations the Legislature's authority when sitting extraordinary sessions. Given the increasing frequency with which extraordinary sessions are being called, this Court should grant review affirm that article VI, section 3(b) still has meaning. 
CONCLUSION Sturgeon Petitioner demonstrated that, paying supplemental benefits the state trial court judges the County Los Angeles, the County Los Angeles usurped the Legislature's duty prescribe judicial compensation. Sturgeon II, Petitioner demonstrated that the Legislature abrogated that same duty enacting Senate Bill 11, which rubberstamps the county-provided benefits without making any truly fundamental policy choice establishing any meaningful safeguards ensure that its fundamental choice being carried out. Because the obvious importance judicial compensation the proper functioning the courts and the administration justice the State California, and because the appellate court Sturgeon clearly departed from this Court's well-established precedent when upheld the county-provided benefits under Senate Bill 11, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court grant review the Court Appeal's December 28, 2010 ruling. 

Dated: March 2011 JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant Counsel: 
Paul Orfanedes Jam Peterson 
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 
425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 Washington, 20024 Tel: (202) 646-5172 Fax: (202) 646-5199 

CERTIFICATION COMPLIANCE 
Pursuant Rule 8.504(d)(l) the California Rules Court, hereby certify that this brief, including footnotes, proportionally spaced, has typeface points more, and contains 1,768 words, which less than the 4,200 words permitted this rule. Counsel relies the word count the computer program used prepare the brief. 
Dated: March 2011 
stiv (I)t:.r!'is Sterling Norris 
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant 
PROOF SERVICE citizen the United States and employed Judicial Watch, Inc. the City Washington, District Columbia. over the age and not party the within action. business address 425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800, Washington, 20024. March 2011, served copy the within document described as: REPLY PETITIONER  transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above the fax number(s) set forth below this date before 5:00 p.m. placing the document(s) listed above sealed envelope  
with postage thereon fully prepaid, the United States mail Washington, D.C. addressed set forth below. placing the document(s) listed above sealed Federal Express envelope and affixing pre-paid air bill, and causing  
the envelope delivered Federal Express agent for  
delivery. personally delivering the document( listed above the person(s) the addresses( es) set forth below.  
See ATTACHED SERVICE LIST readily familiar with the firm's practice collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, would deposited with the U.S. Postal Service that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid the ordinary course business. aware that motion the party served, service presumed invalid postal cancellation date postage meter date more than one day after date deposit for mailing affidavit. declare under penalty perjury the laws the State 
California that the foregoing true and correct. Executed March 2011 Washington, D.C. 

David Rothstein 

SERVICE LIST 
Elwood Lui, Esq. copy) Brian Hershman, Esq. JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, 90071-2300 
Theodore Boutrous, Jr., Esq. copy) Kahn Scolnick, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN CRUTCHER, LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, 90071-3197 
Clerk the Court copy) Court Appeal 4th Appellate District, Division Symphony Towers 750 Street, Suite 300 San Diego, 92101 
Clerk the Court copy) Superior Court California, County Los Angeles 111 Hill Street Los Angeles, 90012



Sign Up for Updates!