SEIU v. Schwarzenegger 6/11/10 CA1/2

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2010 » SEIU v. Schwarzenegger 6/11/10 CA1/2

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: A126525

Case Date: 09/16/2010

Preview:Filed 6/11/10; part. pub. order 7/12/10 (see end of opn.)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000 et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER et al., Defendants and Appellants, ___________________________________ And related Cross-Complaint.

A126525 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CPF-09-509-580)

This litigation was initiated by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and a number of SEIU members on behalf of nine bargaining units of employees of the State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) against the Governor and the Director of the Department of Personnel Administration (Director). The object of the litigation was to halt the mandatory imposition of furlough on State Fund employees for two days per month in accordance with the Governors Executive Order S-16-08. Janet Frank, the President of the State Fund, was originally named as a defendant by SEIU, but she subsequently filed a cross-complaint for the same relief as against the Governors Executive Order S-13-09, which mandated a third furlough day per month. 1

SEIUs complaint also named the Controller as a defendant. The Controller took no position on the merits below, and has filed a brief in support of the judgment. 1

1

On September 24, 2009, Judge Charlotte Woolard of the San Francisco Superior Court entered a judgment issuing a writ of mandate and a permanent injunction halting the practice of mandatory furlough days for State Fund employees represented by the SEIU. The judgment also ordered the Controller "to immediately pay all State Fund employees their full salaries without any reductions pursuant to the illegal furlough directed by the unlawful Executive Orders[,] and . . . make State Fund employees whole, through back pay with legal interest, for the unlawful reduction of their salaries." The Governor and the Director have appealed. Several months earlier, Judge Peter Busch of the San Francisco Superior Court had also granted mandate and injunctive relief against the Governor, the Controller, and the Director in litigation commenced by the California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment (CASE), a bargaining unit of State Fund employees not represented by the SEIU.2 Judge Buschs judgment was limited to furloughs purportedly mandated by the Governors Executive Order S-16-08. First Judge Busch, and then Judge Woolard, concluded that the doctrine of "exclusive concurrent jurisdiction" did not require them to defer to a determination of the Sacramento Superior Court upholding the furlough program as applied to executive branch agencies. Judge Woolard subsequently also agreed with Judge Busch the mandated furloughs of State Fund employees contravened Insurance Code section 11873 (section 11873).3 The Governor and the Director appealed first from Judge Buschs judgment, challenging his conclusions regarding exclusive concurrent jurisdiction and the proper construction of section 11783. Division Three of this District found no error in We are told in the Presidents cross-complaint that the attorney bargaining unit covered by Judge Buschs order has approximately 465 members. The State Fund has approximately 7,900 employees, of whom 6,272 are represented by SEIU. The President took the position in her cross-complaint that "all positions funded by the State Fund are exempt from furloughs . . . [T]he furloughs of State Fund employees result in no savings to the State of California since . . . no State of California moneys go to State Fund" for employee salaries.
3 2

All unspecified statutory references are to the Insurance Code. 2

Judge Buschs conclusions on these two points, and affirmed his judgment. (California Attorneys, etc. v. Schwarzenegger (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1424.) The Governor and the Director did not petition our Supreme Court for review, but the court granted review on its own motion (S182581). Here, the Governor and the Director assert three claims of error, the first two of which challenge the identical conclusions made by Judge Woolard. We have examined the reasoning of the Division Three opinion authored by Justice Pollak, and find it sound--and dispositive of the first two issues. With certain minor editorial changes (see Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 254, fn. 9), we adopt that reasoning as our own. Exclusive Concurrent Jurisdiction Judge Pollak first addressed why litigation commenced in Sacramento was not a reason compelling the San Francisco court to abstain from acting: " ,, "Under the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, ,,when two [California] superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties involved in litigation, the first to assume jurisdiction has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties involved until such time as all necessarily related matters have been resolved. [Citations.] The rule is based upon the public policies of avoiding conflicts that might arise between courts if they were free to make contradictory decisions or awards relating to the same controversy, and preventing vexatious litigation and multiplicity of suits." (People ex rel. Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 760, 769-770.) ,, "[T]he rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction does not require absolute identity of parties, causes of action or remedies sought in the initial and subsequent actions. [Citations.] If the court exercising original jurisdiction has the power to bring before it all the necessary parties, the fact that the parties in the second action are not identical does not preclude application of the rule. Moreover, the remedies sought in the separate actions need not be precisely the same so long as the court exercising original jurisdiction has the power to litigate all the issues and grant all the relief to which any of the parties might be entitled under the 3

pleadings." (Id. at p. 770.) When the rule applies, the second action should be stayed, not dismissed. (Id. at p. 771.) ,,The rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction . . . is mandatory. Thus, if the conditions are met, the issuance of a stay order is a matter of right. (Id. at p. 772.) However, ,,[t]he rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction is not "jurisdictional" in the sense that failure to comply renders subsequent proceedings void. [Citations.] [

Download SEIU v. Schwarzenegger 6/11/10 CA1/2.pdf