My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 05:172
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2005
>
SR 05:172
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2005 2:20:36 PM
Creation date
6/15/2005 2:19:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/21/2005
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 05:172
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
adverse ruling in Allende on the issue of when costs can be recovered would be detrimental to <br />Pleasanton because this issue is at the center of the class action lawsuit filed against Pleasanton <br />(Manzella v. City ofPleasanton). Manzella is currently on hold pending the Allende decision. <br />2. What Salary Costs Are Recoverable: The Court of Appeal is also being asked to determine what <br />expenses of an emergency response are governmental entities authorized to seek. Specifically, the court <br />is being asked to determine whether to limit the recovery of the salary costs for officers who respond to <br />an incident caused by a DUI driver. <br /> <br />In its petition, the CHP contends that the trial court and Allende improperly distinguish between <br />accident investigation and so-called law enforcement costs. The CHP has interpreted the statutes to <br />allow for cost recovery for all of the salary costs for the responding officers to a DUI-related accident. <br />The CHP's interpretation is broader than that opined by the Court. The City of Pleasanton would <br />support an even broader interpretation to allow recovery for all costs of DUI related incidents. <br /> <br /> Amicus Support: <br /> If the League decides to join the amicus brief prepared by Santa Clara County, Pleasanton's interests <br /> will be represented by the League (and Pleasanton does not need to separately join). But if the League <br /> does not join the brief, Pleasanton should individually join in order to protect its interests. <br /> <br /> FISCAL IMPACT <br /> <br /> There is no fiscal impact in adding the City's name to this brief, but an adverse ruling in Allende could <br /> have an adverse f'mancial impact on the City because the City would be susceptible to an adverse ruling <br /> in its own case which could result in restitution, attorney fees, and other costs and expenses. An adverse <br /> ruling would also likely limit the amount of costs that could be recovered for emergency responses for <br /> DUI-related incidents. <br /> <br /> STAFF RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br /> Staff recommends that if the League of California Cities does not support the brief being prepared by the <br /> County of Santa Clara in Allende, the City Council join in the County of Santa Clara's brief. <br /> <br /> Respectfully Submitted, <br /> <br /> Michael H. Roush Nelson Fialho <br /> City Attorney City Manager <br /> <br /> (xst fxpt~amicusADUl.doc) <br /> <br /> SR05:172 <br /> Page 3 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.