Castro

Castro v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 886·232 Cal. App. 3d 1432·284 Cal. Rptr. 154·91 Daily Journal DAR 9510·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6197
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 2, 1991B053611California4,528 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hinz, J.

Introduction

Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against a public, nonprofit corporation created to provide legal services in dependency court. Plaintiffs claimed that representation of multiple parties with potentially adverse interests created a conflict of interest within the corporation and among its attorneys. Finding, as did the trial court, no merit to these claims, we affirm the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

On April 25, 1990, plaintiffs Emma Castro and Elaine Rosen (individually and as taxpayers), and the Juvenile Courts Bar Association, on behalf of itself and its membership, filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (the Board) and its five members, De Witt Clinton (L.A. County Counsel), Richard Dixon (L.A. County Chief Administrative Officer), Dependency Court Legal Services, Inc. (DCLS), and Alan Oberstein (director of DCLS).

The petition and complaint challenged the Board’s formation and funding of DCLS, a corporation, and alleged five causes of action: demand for due process ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ); demand for due process…

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.