Holden

Holden v. Los Angeles City Ethics Commission

Good Law
137 Cal. App. 4th 1274·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 414·2006 Daily Journal DAR 3639·40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 858·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2551
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 27, 2006B170359California2,451 words

Opinion

Opinion

Willhite, J.

In this case, we are asked to determine when a decision of the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission finding violations of campaign financing law becomes final for the purposes of the statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. We hold that the decision is final when, at a public meeting, the commission adopts findings and an order supporting its decision. Because in this case appellants Nate Holden and Anne Froehlich filed their petition for writ of mandate more than 90 days after the commission adopted the findings and order they sought to challenge, we affirm the trial court’s judgment denying the petition on the ground that it was time-barred.

BACKGROUND

Holden ran for reelection to city council in 1999. Froehlich was treasurer for his 1999 campaign, and had been Holden’s treasurer on many of his previous campaigns. Holden was challenged in the primary in April 1999, and won the general election in June 1999.

Following Holden’s reelection in 1999, the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission conducted an audit of his campaign. It discovered 31 violations of the city campaign financing laws. Some of those violations involved excess campaign…

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.