County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County

Good Law
171 Cal. App. 4th 119·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 176·89 Cal. Rptr. 3d 520·37 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1277
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 17, 2009H031740California3,759 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mihara, J.

These six writ petitions all raise the same issue. The question is whether, under the California Public Records Act (the CPRA; Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) and the California Supreme Court’s decision in Filarsky v. Superior Court (2002) 28 Cal.4th 419 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 , 49 P.3d 194 ] (Filarsky) interpreting the CPRA, real parties in interest Janice and Ronald Naymark are precluded from bringing an action under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a against petitioners. The superior court concluded that the CPRA and Filarsky do not preclude the Naymarks from bringing this action and overruled petitioners’ demurrers on this ground. Petitioners seek writ relief overturning that ruling. We conclude that neither the CPRA nor Filarsky precludes the Naymarks from proceeding with their action against petitioners, and we deny the petitions.

I. Background

In February 2007, the Naymarks, who are residents of the City of Saratoga in the County of Santa Clara, filed an action under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Naymarks’ action named as defendants the cities of San Jose, Campbell, Monte Sereno, Palo Alto, and Santa Clara, the…

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.