Shapiro

Shapiro v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CCDC

Good Law
134 Cal. App. 4th 170·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1813·35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 826·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9899
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 22, 2005D045506California5,707 words

Opinion

Opinion

Irion, J.

In this appeal, we examine whether Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC)—a nonprofit corporation created by the City of San Diego—may hold closed-session meetings with legal counsel for the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Diego (the Agency) to assist the Agency with its eminent domain litigation. Seeking declaratory, injunctive and mandamus relief, plaintiff Melvin Shapiro alleges that defendant CCDC’s Board of Directors (CCDC Board) must meet in open session with the Agency’s legal counsel pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) (Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.). Shapiro argues that because CCDC is not a party to the Agency’s eminent domain litigation, the CCDC Board may not rely on section 54956.9 of the Brown Act, which permits the legislative body of a local agency to hold closed-session meetings with its legal counsel to discuss litigation to which it is a party.

The trial court ruled against Shapiro, concluding that the CCDC acts on behalf of the Agency with respect to the eminent domain litigation and thus may meet in closed session with the Agency’s counsel under the closed-session rules applicable to the Agency.

We disagree with the trial court’s…

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.