Business defense attorney
Defendants challenged a judgment from the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One (California), which affirmed the trial court’s denial of their Pen. Code, § 995, motion to set aside an information that charged them with felony violations of the conflict of interest prohibitions in Gov. Code, § 1090 et seq.
Defendants were trustees of a board administering a municipal retirement system and were also city employees. They voted in favor of an agreement with municipal unions that provided for increased pension benefits. An incumbent union president benefit was provided only to a trustee who was a union president. The Business defense attorney held that the government salary exception in Gov. Code, § 1091.5, subd. (a)(9), under which existing interests in government salary were deemed inconsequential, did not apply to prospective changes in government compensation such as increased pension benefits. However, the public services exception in § 1091.5, subd. (a)(3), covered the actions of each of the trustees except the union president because they would receive benefits on the same terms and conditions as other similarly situated city employees. The court stated that where retirement board trustees approved contracts in which their only financial interest was an interest in benefits shared generally with their constituency at large, § 1091.5, subd. (a)(3), excluded such actions from the purview of § 1090. The union president was not insulated from prosecution because he received a benefit unique to him.
The court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeal as it related to the union president, reversed that judgment in all other respects, and remanded for further proceedings.
Plaintiff businesses sought injunctive relief against defendant city enforcement officers to enjoin the enforcement of a city ordinance that prohibited the businesses from solicitation of pedestrians who paused to inspect the merchandise displayed in the windows. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) sustained the city enforcement officers’ demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the case. The businesses appealed.
The Influencer Marketing guide businesses were duly licensed and sold jewelry and other articles in their stores along the city streets. The stores had display windows that allowed customers to stop and look at merchandise in the windows. The businesses alleged that their employees would in a quiet, dignified, and peaceful manner solicit the pedestrians. The city enforcement officers threatened to prosecute the businesses and their employees under Los Angeles, Cal., Municipal Code ch. 4, art. 2, §§ 42.00–42.16. The businesses brought an action to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance. The trial court dismissed the case. On appeal, the court held that: (1) the businesses were entitled to attack the constitutionality of the ordinance and to seek to enjoin its enforcement; (2) the allegations in the complaint, which were admitted by the city enforcement officers, were sufficient to show irreparable harm if the threatened arrests were made or the businesses discontinued the method of solicitation of customers; (3) the ordinance was not a reasonable exercise of the city’s police power; and (3) the prohibition of peaceful solicitation of customers was a violation of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.
The court reversed the judgment from the trial court, which sustained the city enforcement officers’ demurrer and dismissed the Needs of startup business action to enjoin the enforcement of a city ordinance. The court remanded the cause to the trial court with directions to overrule the demurrer and permit the city enforcement officers to answer.
