APPEAL NO. D056266 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE HAROLD P. STURGEON, Plaintiff and Appellant, vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants and Respondents, and LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT, Intervenor and Respondent. ON APPEAL FROM THE FINAL JUDGMENT OF CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CASE NO. BC351286 ‘THE HONORABLE JAMES A. RICHMAN APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF Sterling E. Norris (SBN 040993) JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 2540 Huntington Drive, Suite 201 San Marino, CA 91108-2601 Tel: (626) 287-4540 Fax: (626) 237-2003 Counsel for AppellantCERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS Counsel hereby discloses pursuant to Cal. Rule of Court 8.208 that the following entities or persons may have an interest in this case: Appellant Harold P. Sturgeon Respondent Los Angeles County (c/o Roy Sinclair) Respondent Michael E. Antonovich (in his official capacity as Los Angeles County Supervisor) Respondent Yvonne B. Burke (in her official capacity as Los Angeles County Supervisor) Respondent Don Knabe (in his official capacity as Los Angeles County Supervisor) Respondent Gloria Molina (in her official capacity as Los Angeles County Supervisor) Respondent Zev Yaroslavsky (in his official capacity as Los Angeles County Supervisor) Respondent Larry Gonzalez. (in his official capacity as Division Chief of the Countywide Payroll Division of the Los Angeles County Department of Auditor-Controller) Respondent David E. Janssen (in his capacity as Chief Administrative Officer of Los Angeles County) Respondent J. Tyler McCauley (in his official capacity as Auditor- Controller for Los Angeles County) Intervenor Los Angeles Superior CourtAttorneys for Appellant Attorneys for Respondent Attorneys for Intervenor All judges of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los ‘Angeles Any judge who formerly served as a judge of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles who received benefits paid by the County of Los AngelesTABLE O) ‘ENT! Page CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS . . i ITABLE OF CONTENTS 0 settee sees te rere ere terre ea iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..........000.000cc00ese eee iv INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......000000000008 1 ARGUMENT 22.00.0002 cece cece te vecee eee e este eneeee nessa eeenee 5 I. Standard of Review ...........00ceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 5 IL. The California Legislature Lacked Authority to Enact Senate Bill X21] 00.2... cccceeeceseeeeeeeeuseveeeeeeee ees 6 IL. Senate Bill X2 11 Fails to “Prescribe” The Benefits at Issue 2... cece cece eeeeeceeeeeeeteeeuaeeeseeeenee ness u IV. Senate Bill X2 11 Violates Fundamental Tenets of Equal Protection ...........2..00ee 0000 be vbeeeeeeees 20 ICONCEUSION) tere ere 25 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO RULE 8.520(c) PROOF OF SERVICE ATTACHMENT itiTABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Hernandez v. City of Hanford, 41 Cal.4th 279 (2007) .......0eee00s 20-21, 23 Kugler v. Yocum, 69 Cal.2d 371 (1968) 02... 00.s00ceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees u Martin v. County of Contra Costa, 8 Cal. App. 34 856 (1970) Martin v, Riley, 20 Cal.2d 28 (1942) ©... 6.00 ec ee eee eee e eee e eee 7,10 People v. Curry, 130 Cal. 82 (1900) ... 6... esses eee cece eee eee ee . 7,10 Ranchwood Communities Limited Partnership v. Jim Beat Const., 49 Cal. App. 4th 1397 (1996) .. 2... 0. cece cece eee eee eee e eens 5,6 Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal.3d 728 (1976) «02... 000 eee e cere e ee ee eee pater Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal. App. 4th 630 (2008) . Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1735 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Nov. 7, 2008) Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, No. $168408 (Cal. Dec. 23, 2008) ........ 2 Constitutional Provisions Cal. Cons., art. 1, § 7 ec ceccceeeeeveeeneeeeeeesee eee eeeeeeeee eens 20 Cal. Const., art.1V,§ 3. ..c0ccccsceceeeeeee este eeeeeeeeeeeseneees 7,10 (Gall Consttart V0) eee tee eee 20 USS. Const., amend. XIV .Statutes and Ordinances Page GIFT ESP 111,00 aoa ocqdoaocnsanenaonnpaceshbaapsogan aece5co5u6 3,6 Stats. 2009, ch 9, § I(a) « GIES TTPO") soonasonodqoonn sennacananoonpronondedceoonoon 24 Stats. 2009, ch 9, § 2(@) .0.ecceeeceeeeseeeeeceeeeeeeeeseeeeees 3, 12,17 Stats 2009%ch90§ 20) ee eee reer: 12, 16 Stats. 2009, h9, § 5 ve. ceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee sett eeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 3,24 Stats. 2009, ch 9, §6 0. 0cceceeeeeeeeeeeeeee neta eeeee eset neeee ened 12 Gov't Code § 77200... 0. .eee eee eeeeeee cece eeeeeeee eee eeeeeeee seen: 2 los Angeles County, Code//5.23\¢t eet tere Cnet eee 17 Los Angeles County Code § 5.25 00... ..cccceccsueeeeeeeeeeeeeuneeens 17 Los Angeles County Code § 5.26 .. Los Angeles County Code § 5.28 fos Angeles County, code(s fey ee sette aes . Los Angeles County Code § 5.40 0... 00ceccceeeeeeeeueeeeeeseneeenes 7Miscellaneous Page Judicial Council of California, “Historical Analysis of Disparities in Judicial Benefits,” Report to the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, the Assembly Committee on Budget, and the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary, December 19, 2009 .... 00. e eee eeeeeee ee eee eee eee passim viINTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE On April 24, 2006, Plaintiff, a taxpayer and resident of the County of Los Angeles, filed this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, naming the following nine defendants: the County of Los Angeles, the five members of the County’s Board of Supervisors, the County’s Chief Executive Officer, the County’s Auditor-Controller, and the Division Chief of the Payroll Division of the County’s Auditor-Controller (collectively “Defendants”). Clerk’s Transcript (hereinafter “CT”) at 000011-18. Invoking Code of Civil Procedure Section 526a, Plaintiff sought to enjoin Defendants from supplementing the compensation received by the judges of the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles (“the State Court”). Id. Specifically, Plaintiff contended that Defendants’ payment of supplemental benefits to the State Court’s judges contravenes Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution, among other relevant statutes and provisions of law. Id. On or about September 6, 2006, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for summary adjudication, which Plaintiff opposed. CT at 000006-7. The trial court heard oral arguments and, by Order entered on or about January 9, 2007, granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. CT at 000009. The trial court found that the County of Los Angeles” payment ofsupplemental benefits was neither a gift nor a waste of public funds. It also found that the benefits were authorized by the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 (“Lockyer-Isenberg”), Government Code § 77200, et seq. Plaintiff timely appealed the trial court’s final judgment. CT at 000006. This Court reversed. Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal. App. 4th 630 (2008). It found that the supplemental benefits paid by Defendants to the State Court’s judges constituted compensation within the meaning of Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution and, as a result, must be prescribed by the Legislature. Id, at 644, 657. Because the benefits at issue had not been prescribed by the Legislature, this Court found that the benefits were unconstitutional and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. Id, at 657. Defendants moved for rehearing, but were denied. Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1735 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Nov. 7, 2008). Defendants petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review, but that petition was denied as well. Sturgeon v, County of Los Angeles, No. $168408 (Cal. Dec. 23, 2008). In February 2009, the Legislature, sitting in an extraordinary session, enacted Senate Bill X2 11 “to address the decision of the Court of Appeal in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 630, regardingcounty-provided benefits for judges.” Stats. 2009, ch. 9, § 1(a). ‘The Legislature found: “These provisions were declared unconstitutional as an impermissible delegation of the obligation of the Legislature to prescribe the compensation of judges of courts of record.” Stats. 2009, ch. 9. The new legislation provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Judges of a court whose judges received supplemental judicial benefits provided by the county or court, or both, as of July 1, 2008, shall continue to receive supplemental benefits from the county or court then paying the benefits on the same terms and conditions as were in effect on that date. Stats. 2009, ch. 9, § 2(a). It also included a grant of immunity to any governmental entity, officer, employee, or judge based on Defendants’ earlier provision of the unconstitutional, supplemental benefits: Notwithstanding any other law, no governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be subject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefits provided to a judge under the official action of a governmental entity prior to the effective date of this act on the ground that those benefits were not authorized under law. Stats. 2009, ch. 9, § 5. Most unusually, on March 13, 2009, the trial court authorized itself to intervene as a defendant in this matter to protect its purported interests in the