Durant

Durant v. Padre Dam Municipal Water Dist. CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 2, 2015D065088California5,328 words

Opinion

Opinion

Irion, J.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

A. The District and Its July 2011 Deficit Elimination Plan

The District is a public agency with a billion dollar infrastructure that provides

water, wastewater, recycled water and recreation services to residents in certain suburbs

of San Diego.

An elected five-member board of directors (Board) is responsible for adoption of a

budget and setting reserves for the District. Typically, the Board adopts a five-year

budget, which approximates $53 million annually, and the Board is presented with an

updated budget for approval each year. The Board, which hires and has delegated the

day-to-day operations to a manager, must approve any memorandum of understanding

For facts, we have disregarded the parties' record reference citations to the various separate statements in support of and in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Citations in separate statements are not evidence of anything; they are "mere assertion[s]." (Stockinger v. Feather River Community College (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1024.)

2 (MOU) with the Padre Dam Employees Association (PDEA), the employee association

that represented Durant (and all…

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.