Bloodgood

Municipal Court v. Bloodgood

Good Law
137 Cal. App. 3d 29·186 Cal. Rptr. 807·1982 Cal. App. LEXIS 2122
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 27, 1982Civ. 63264California5,634 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kingsley, J.

The county-auditor (Bloodgood) appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, respondents and cross-appellants—each of the 24 separate municipal court districts in Los Angeles County—and against defendant, appellant, and cross-respondent Mark Bloodgood, Auditor Controller of the County of Los Angeles.

The court below found that respondents properly hired independent counsel pursuant to their inherent power and pursuant to Government Code sections 27647 and 27648 which authorize municipal court judges to hire counsel when they would have been entitled to representation by county counsel but where county counsel has a conflict of interest. The court below also found that appellant was required to pay the reasonable value of the services, costs and expenses of “independent” counsel in connection with actions taken or threatened by the county. The lower court found also that appellant judges were required to pay the reasonable value of the services, costs and expenses of counsel in connection with the lawsuit brought to enforce their rights.

The complaint was for declaratory relief. The court gave the judges a money judgment against the County of Los Angeles.

This action…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.