CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA

(For Damages to Persons or Persona l Property)

Received by: _ w.,__l t2le. JJr w_t.ute(_ -Via: U.S. Mail

Inter-Office Mail)( Over the Counter

OCT 2 2 2013

CITY OF SOUTH PASAOEN CITY C-LERK'S OFFICE

A claim must be filed with the City Clerk of the City of South Pasadena within 6 months after the date on wh i ch the incident or event occurred. Be sure your claim is against the City of South Pasadena, not another public entity. Where space is insufficient, please use additional paper and identify i.nfonnation by paragraph number. Completed claims must be mailed or delivered to the City Clerk, the City of South Pasadena,1414 Mission Street , South Pasadena, Ca lifornia 91030.

TO TH E H O N ORA B L E M AYO R A N D CITY COU NCI L , The City of South Pasadena, California.

The undersigned respectfull y submits the follow ing claim and inform ation relative to damage to persons and/or personal property:

I . Name of Claimant: Mark and Roberta Nansen

Address of Claimant: 2 14·5

Hanscom-

Drive

---------------------

Phone No . (818) 4 15-2354 Date of Bil1h:

Social Security N o. D1iver 's License No.

_R_0_5_3_4_8_6_8 _

2. Name, telephone and post office address to which claimant desires notices to be sent if other than above:Law Offi ces .o.f.11a1 ·v i1 1 , R 11d 1·""""-------------------------42 E . Colorado Blvd . Second Floor, Pasadena, CA 911 05

3. Occurrence or event from which the claim arises:Date 0 4 / 2 4 / 20 1 3 Time -----

Place (exact and specific location) See Attached

How and under what circumstances did damage or injmy occur? Specify the particular occurrence, event, act or omission you claim caused the inju1y or damage (use additional paper if necessary).See Attached

What pat1icular action by the City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or mjury? See Attached

4. ' Give a desc1iption of the injury, property damage or loss, so far as is known at the time of this claim.If there were no injuries, state "no injuries".

See Attached

5. . Give the name(s) of the City employee(s) causing the damage or i.t ury: See Attached

6. Name and address of any other person injured: See Attached

7. Name and address of the owner of any damaged property:See Attach

--------------------------------

8. Damages claimed:a.b.C.

Amount claimed as of this date: Estimated amount of future costs: Total amount claimed :

$ Unlimi ted

Basis for computa tion of amounts claimed (includ e copies of all bills, invoices, estimates, etc.): Un li m i ted

9. Names and addresses of all witnesses, hospital s, doctors, etc.a. See Attach e d b. c.ct.

l 0. Any additional i.tummation that might be helpful in considering this claim:

. f. f :.-. ..:'.::;'.'qfl J& ; AifO.FFENSE TO FILE A FALSE CLAIM.n -!F t:··:;:,·;\:f;- .'· :,;., . ... :. . :'. JP,§2; Insurance Code §556.1)

Vwe declare under penal ty of pe1jmy that the above matters and statements are true and conect to the best of my/our lmowledge. As to those statements based on info1mation or belief , I/we believe them to be trne.

Signed thi s _l_O day of October

Office of the City Clerk South Pasadena, Ca l i forn ia Websi te form : yv. l 0/ 00

Claimant or Claimant's Legal Representative

Marvin L. Rudnick Printed name

Page 1 of 5Nanse n Claim

ATTACHMENT RE §§ 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 9 OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

AGAINST CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA FOR VIOLATION OF

CIVIL RIGHTS OF CLAIMANTS

South Pasadena residents Mark Nansen, and Roberta Nansen ("Nansens") hereby

submit their Claim for Damages upon the City of South Pasadena for violations of their

State and Federal Civil Rights, and other rights. This claim is arises out of the

Misdemeanor Complaints against them. The first Complaint was filed in July 2011 and

amended January 18, 2012. The Complaint was filed by attorneys from the Law Firm of

Jones and Mayer , who are purported officials of the City of South Pasadena, -yet none

of these attorneys had not taken the oath of office under Article XX section 3 of the

California Constitution at the time the Complaint was filed. By failing to swear into their

Office, these attorneys were not authorized to act under California law. Additionally, two

of these attorneys were not duly appointed to their city positions as required by Gov .

Code § 36505.

The actions of three attorneys, Jamaar Boyd-Weatherby, Richard Adams II, and

Michael Q. Do, of the private law firm of Jones & Mayer, ("Jones & Mayer attorneys")

prior to taking the required oath of office and being appointed by the South Pasadena

City Council, were unconstitutional, made without lawful authority and done in violation

of the California Constitution and California Law. As of the latest City Records search,

both Mr. Boyd Weatherby and Mr. Do still have not been appointed to their positions by

the City Council as required by the California Gov. Code § 36505. Nevertheless, at the

time he brought formal criminal charges against the Nansens, Mr. Boyd-Weatherby

Page 2 of 5Nanse n Claim

represented himself as the City's duly appointed and sworn prosecutor to a sworn Judge

of the Los Angeles Superior Court ("LASC"). He did so with the knowledge that he had

not taken the oath of office, nor had he been appointed to the position of City Prosecutor

by the City Council. As such, Mr. Boyd-Weatherby did not and could not act in a lawful

or official capacity at that time. Incredibly, Mr. Boyd Weatherby chose to conceal this

information from the Superior Court forcing the Nansens to endure severe emotional and

financial damages.

Next, unsworn and un-appointed attorney Mr. Michael Do representing himself as

an associate City Attorney who brought an Application for an Inspection Warrant before

another sworn Judge of the LASC to search the Nansens' property while using a civil

warrant to secure the resulting criminal charges against them. Finally, also while

unsworn, Mr. Adams worked on the case to charge the Nansens with City code violations

to support the criminal charges knowing that some of these City codes were no longer

enforceab le. (See attached e-mail, Bate #50.) Moreover, while building a case against the

Nansens, Mr. Adams knew he had previously exonerated them for six of the

misdemeanor counts and charged them anyway (See Adams letter, Exhibit "B") Mr.

Adams did this to humiliate the Nansens and force them to spend their funds to defend

criminal charges rather than seeking alternative remedies available to the City . (See e

mail from Ramirez to Mayer requiring the Nansens to "legalize all previous unpermitted

work" even though Mr. Adams had exonerated this same work, Bate #50.) Also, the

Nansens contend that their Constitutional rights were violated when Mr. Adams and other

City officials schemed to bring both civil and criminal enforcement of building code

violations against them at the same time City officials did this even though the City had

Page 3 of 5Nanse n Claim

removed from the building code "violations and penalties" clauses, a fact known to Mr .

Adams at the time he pursued the case against the Nansens.

On April 24, 2013 the Nansens learned that the Jones & Mayer Attorneys were

unsworn when the City brought charges against them. They learned this fact from a South

Pasadena City Official. As lawyers advising the City, the Jones & Mayer attorneys knew

or should have lmown that it was a legal requirement to be sworn to engage in their acts

against the Nansens. Moreover, as Jones & Mayer attorneys, they should have known that

their firm was specifically reprimanded by a Court for the same omissions as documented

by the attached appellate court case People v. Acosta, 30-2008 -00041207 App. Div . Sup.

Crt. Of Orange County, (December 17, 2008). In this case, the Law Firm of Jones and

Mayer attempted a prosecution of Benito Acosta in Orange County. The Attorney who

brought Criminal Charges against Mr. Acosta was not sworn in, nor was he duly

appointed by the Costa Mesa City Council. The Appellate court found that this issue was

fatal to the prosecution of Mr. Acosta. These are parallel facts in this case. Mr . Boyd

Weatherby holds himself out to be a City Prosecutor has not been appointed by the City

Council, and at the time Criminal Charges were filed, was not sworn in.

California law requires any criminal pros ecution be brought in the name of the

People by a public officer. Government Code § § l OO(b), 36900(a), and Penal Code §

69 1(d). Thus, the duty to prosecute a municipal ordinance must be by a person qualified

to appear in court for this purpose. Montgomery v. Superior Court of Solano County, 46

Cal.App.3d 657, 668 (1975). Clearly, claims herein and evidence above shows that the

three City Attorneys were not qualified to paiiicipate as they did to bring the charges

against the Nansens. Gov. Code § 1303 states that if an "Official" acts in an official

Page 4 of 5Nanse n Claim

capacity prior to taking the Constitutionally mandated oath, that "Official has committed

a criminal offense. In failing to admit to the LASC of their failure to take the

constitutionally mandated Oath's, these attorneys were attempting to avoid these criminal

charges. Furthermore, we believe that the Jones and Mayer attorneys concealed these

facts from the South Pasadena City Council. Moreover, under Gov. Code § 1367, it is

unlawful for these attorneys to accept any compensation or reimbursement for expenses

from the City until such time they have taking the oath of office. Therefore, under Gov.

Code § 1367, the Law Firm of Jones and Mayer is legally required to reimburse the City

for any and all of these funds .

We demand that the city seek criminal charges under Government Code 1367

against the three individuals named above and other Jones & Mayer attorneys who have

acted as officials while not being sworn in. Finally, we demand that the City dismiss all

charges against the Nansens as a product of the unlawful prosecution by the Jones and

Mayer attorneys.

Furthermore, the Nansens hereby seek and demand unlimited damages from the

City for legal fees, costs, and emotional distress incurred by them as result of the

violation of their civil rights including but not limited to the fees and costs of defending

the criminal case against each of them and the embarrassment, shame, pain and suffering

it has caused each of them.

Since the Nansens have provided evidence that the Jones & Mayer Attorneys

engaged in the above wrongful conduct, to the detriment of the City of South Pasadena,

as well as the Nansens, Claimants hereby request and demand that each of the Jones &

Mayer Attorneys and each member of Jones & Mayer law firm be recused from

Page 5 of Nansen

reviewing, advising, or ruling on this Claim and that the City seek independent legal

counsel not associated nor hired by the Jones and Mayer law firm, directly or indirectly,

to advise them in any response or other action on it merits of this claim.

Exhibits to Attach men t to §§3, 4, 5, 6, 7 &9: E-mailAdams exoneration letter California ConstitutionGovernment Code § 36505, l OO(b), 36900(a), 1303, 1367 Penal Code §69 1(d)Remittitur of Pe ople v Acosta

Page 1 of 1

John Davidson

From: David Walkins

Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 11:51 AM

To: John Davidson Subject: Fwd; Nansen Status

Hi John,

Below is Marlon's update - he worked with Richard on this yesterday because of the previous contentious legal history. Police will be instructed to respond to calls and take a detailed report to add to the evidence file.

Begin forwarded message:

From: "John Mayer" <.TMayer@ci.south pasadena.ca.us> Date: March 18, 2011 11:15:45 AM PDTTo: "David Watkins" <DWatkins@ci.south-pasadena.ca.us>Subject:: FW: Nansen Status

FYI. From Marlon

-----Original Message-----From: Marlon Ramirez [mai1to:mramirezwrl5@hotmail.com] Sent: Fri.day, March 18, 2011 11:15 AMTo: John Mayer

Subject: Nansen Status ....

Here is an update:

Drafting of a official stop work notice that identifies all the new work recently discovered. The notice will also require the Nansen's to legalize all previous unpennitted work (grading,retaining walls). Ineed to work with Craig and Ayla regarding certain code sections to be cited for building code violations. The building division removed sections of the building code (Violations and Penalties) that treats a building violation as a misdemeanor. I'm waiting for a reply from Ayla. The notice will include language that violation of the second stop work order is a misdemeanor, and will result in legal action by the City; the city can get an injunction and he can be ll.lTested if he continues unpennitted work. At the same time, the City Prosecutor will file a misdemeanor complaint with the Superior Court.

We pretty much have the Nansen's right where we want them. Iunderstand that there is some urgency, but we have a good plan in place. We needto make sure that the notice sent to them is absolutely perfect because Idon't expect that this case will be resolved administratively . Given that their has been some hiccups on the City's behalf (provided erroneous information, possible trespassing)! don't want to rush this and risk making a possible mistake.

Sent from my Iphone

4/18/2012

.

.,...

0050

.'

'

· O ct . 1 7. 2 0 1 1 3 : 3 0 PM N o. 7 8 0 1 P. 4N f-i Al se- Ar--oo -+-- ,

Ji s .fYif\v.. a-J-

J O N E S & M A Y E RATTORNEYS )1.T LAW

3171 NORTH JJARElOR BOULEVARD • FVLLERTON, CAL!fORNlA92B35(71 4) 446·1400 • (562) 697-1751 • FAX (71 4) 446-1448

Rfeiatr!D. fo;w•M1111 1n J. M:l)'I'<r.irrM;ly H,ll llai1o·!•10" llT,111ohs10111

Hlc\11trd f ,, Ador1 ll llH10'Jr floY·IVQl:r1i>y C;.:i,.4]; j, fl!i.IU.i.,l.:!i-..I.:nl'1Ul\ .1.\ilil< lliio\i.'l Q.Do Tb'"'P. Dua Kri1<•M•1'U"ii1 '"'JSlm . O!!llGllli!loph>r F.Nl'll'Y"'X:.t hyv 1'1. \)11'11Grtl;fll)'P.P1l1w:1 l);\n11y !,, PM/m on fhrclcl \.'. PolMD•l11: !.. Ril<l•wi thlmr.i ) l . fl)1"°'l v:; 11.1:...

April 19, 2010 ·

Ql'.CJl!ml.tl MivhMl R. Cpllll Peoo J, Pmi

'Mm>fo 0.Pein,!ofr1Sl•VO H. Sl•V<l•y

· PmbiJ1Hl LJ\'/ C¢1111Hl!ion

Y!A _E . . l V lAl l , D J:l l;BST CLABS MAlL .JSK@ATT0Rt .E1'KENNEDY.COM . .

J. Steven l<ennedy Law Offices ofJ . STEVEN l\ENNEDY225 So. Lak13 Avenue, Suite 300 Pasadena, California 91101

Re: Publlc .Records Request - Corresponde11oe dated...Aprll 8 1

2010 Nansen - 2'i 4o ·Hansoon:i DrivB, Sou'fff P':nm:tiMie{. · . .

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

This letter is written In response to the public records portion of your above referenced11

conespondence 10 City Manager, John Davidson. Your records request was as follows: /

hereby renew the Nansens' request for copies of all pictures taken on their property by tile Cityof South Pasadena, fn October 2009.1 Please be advised that (01 d!Jlgent searcl1 for suchrr- r.ordG Ms been conducted in the Planning & Building Division and the City Prosecutor'soffice f:ir1d·no sur,h records llave been found. It.is niy understanding some pictures of the sl1bjec1 properly we re take n on a d!gttal camera , however the Images were not retained when it was d-etermined that there were no vlolations 0 1 the subject prope1iy and therefore the images

·. were not necessa 1y for enforceme nt purposes.

· O c t . 1 7. 2 0 1 1 3 : 3 0 PM N o. 7 8 0 1 P . 5

Page 2Aprll 1_9, 2010

Richard L. Adiuns II ,City AttorneyCity of South Pasadena

RLA/dmj .

cc: John David$on, City ManagerDavld Watkins, Director of Planning & BuildingElerta Gerli, City Prosecutor

California Constitution Article XX Section 3:

Members of the Legisl ature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and jud ici al , except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shal l, before they en ter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

"I, _ , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constituti on of the United States and the Consti- tu tion of the State ofCa lifornia against a ll enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegi ance to the Constitution of the United States and the Consti tution ofthe State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the du ties upon which I am about to enter.

"And I do further swear (or affirm) tha t I do not advoca te, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Governmentof the United States or of the State of California by force or vi olence or other un lawfu l means; th at wi thin the five years immediately preceding the takin g of thi s oath (or affirmatio n) I have not been a member of any party or organ ization, poli tical or other- w ise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force orv i olence.

California Government Code § 36505:

The city counci l shall appo i nt the chief of police. It may appoint a city attorney, a superintendent of streets, a civil engineer, and such other subor dinate officers or employees as i t deems n ecessary.

California Government Code § l OO(b):

The sty le of all proc ess shal l be "The People of the State of California," and all prosecutions sha ll be conducted in their name and by their au thority.

California Govern ment Code § 36900(a):

V io lation of a city ordi nance is a misdemeanor unless by ordinance it is made aninfract ion. The v iol a tion of a city ordinance may be prosecuted by city authorities in the name of the people of the State of California, or redressed by civil action.

California Penal Code § 69 1(d):

The words "prosecuting attorney " include any attorney, whether designated as district attorne y, city attorn ey, city prosecutor, prosecuting attorney, or by any other title, having by law the right or duty to pro secute, on behalf of the people , any charge of a public offense.

Californi a Government Code § 1303 :

Every person who exercises any function of a public office without taking the oath of office, or wi th ou t gi ving th e r equired bond, is guilty of a misdemeanor. This section does not affect the validity of acts done by a person exercising the function s of a public office in fact, where other persons than him self are interest ed in mai ntaining the validity of such acts.

Californi a Government Code § 1367 :

No comp en sation nor reim bursement for expenses incurred shall be paid to any officer b y any public agency u n less he h as taken and subscrib ed to the oath or affirmation required by thi s ch a pter.

'

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFOR NIACOUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL ,nJSTICE CENTER

APPELLATE DIVISION Fj ,.. '' ,, >"I

'.)' ..-.. \,) i.i. ...... U' o''

f.\ Li-\N CARLSON;C/llfk of \hR CoL1fi/ ),!\,.7/ ·-

tW G GALON

People of the State of Ca l i for n ia 30-2008-00041 207

Pla i ntiff Tri a l Co u rt Case No.06HM04320

Vs

AcostaDefenc!<1n t

REMITTJTUR

I , A LAN CA RLSON, Executive OffJccr and Clerk of the Su peri or Court, County of Oran ge, certify the a ttached is a true and correct copy of the origi nal J udgment entered i n th e above enti t l ed cause on October 23. 2008 and the J udgment has no\v become fina l.

N o costs a rc a wa rd ed i n th is acti o n .

W i t ness m y ha nd and sea l of t he Cou rt this Dece r 1 1ber l 7 _,_2Q08.

A LAN CA RLSON, Clerk of the Cou rt

REMITTITUR

d

112 1

I!3 j APPELLATE DIVISION

!

FILEDSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNl/l,

COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

OCT 2 3 2008ALAN CARLSON . Clerk of \he Coun

4 111

sl\6

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ·BY H POTIER

COUNTY OF ORANGE

11

7 JIs i91

!l O iI

iii!12\

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) CASE NO. 30- 2008- 00041207 CALIFORNIA, )

)

Plaintif f and ) JUDGMENT ON APPEALAppellant, ) from the

) SUPERIOR COURTvs . ) of

) ORANGE COUNTYBENITO ACOSTA, ) HARBOR JUSTICE CENTER

)Defendant and )Respondent. ) HON. KELLY MACEACHERN

I )

i 31 .

JUDGE

14111s1 1611

17!!18

11

1911

The trial court in this case granted respondent 's motion

for dismissal of the misdemeanor charges for violation of the

Costa Mesa Municipal Code after the "city prosecutor " (Danny

Peelman, a member of the private law firm of Jone & Mayer)

admitted he had not taken the constitutionally mandated oath of

office. (Cal. Const. ,

Art . XX, § 3. ) For the reasons hereafter stated, we affirm.

20! The dismissal order is appealable under Penal Code §

21 1466(i) (b), inasmuch as respondent 's motion was predicated upon the

2 2 1 trial court's lack of J'urisdiction due to an absence of

2 3 11 prosecutor ialauthority. ( Se e People v . Ramirez (1972) 2 7

24[ Cal.App.3d 660, 669; Oregon v . Kenne dy (1982) 456 U.S. 667, 676 n .

2 s,!1!

261'!

2 7 /I

2 s11

11

6.) "It is elementary that legal jeopardy does not arise where

the court has no jurisdiction." (Anger v.

Municipal Court of San

Francisco (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 69, 71; see also People v. Hamberg

( 189 0 ) 84 Cal. 4 6 8 , 4 7 2 ; Serfass v. United States (1975) 420 U.S.

I

I2 11

377, 391.)

The public records relied upon by appellant, including a 2004

3!\ contract for perfo rmance of City Attorney legal services by Jones &

4 11

Mayer on behalf of the City

of

Costa Mesa, are judicially

s! noticeable under Evidence Code § § 452(h) and 459. (See Dunn-Edwards Corp. v. South Coast Air Quality

Management Dist. ( 1993 ) 19

:11!

Cal.App.4 th

536 ,

54 3

n. 3 . ) Granting appellant 's

request for

s l judicial notice renders moot respondent' s motion to strike.

9 ' California law requires a criminal prosecution to be brought

l O i

111121 113,,

14!115' /

in the nameof the People by a public officer, such as a

city attorney. (Government Code § § lO O (b), 36900(a);

Penal Code § 69l(d), defining "prosecuting

attorney" as an attorney "designated by title, having by

law the right orduty to

pros<3cute"; Fleming v. Hance (1908) 153 Cal. 16 2 , 16 7 ; People ex

rel. Clancy v . Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 740, 746, 749 and n .

16 3; People ex rel. Chapman v. Rapsey ( 19 4 0 ) 16 Cal.2d 6 3 6 , 639;

17 1 Peop v. Eubanks (1996) 14 Cal.4th 580, 588; Dix v . Superior Court

(1991) 53 Ca.l .3d 4 4 2 , 451.)

19

20

21

2 223

:

:1i

2 61·2 7JI2 s /I

A poffice ispublic trust created ininand for the benefit ofpeople. Public officersobligated, virtute ofidischarge their responsibilitiesth integrityfidelity. Since the officersgovernmental body are trusteestpublic weal, they mayexploit orr

ostitute their official position for their private benefits.

(Terry v . Bender (1956) 143 Cal .App.2d 198, 206.) "Thus, the

'duty' to prosecute a municipal ordinance violation in a general

law city may properly befall its city attorney because he is an

'officer of the city qualified' to appear in court for the

purpose."

1

I

i\i

(Montgomery v. Superior Co u rt of Solano C o un t y (1975) 46 Cal.App. 3d

2 11 6 5 7 I

668, quoting

_P_e_o_,p. l_e

e_x r_e_l_.

C_h_a_.p.m__a_n

v_._R_a_p_s_e_,y;..,supra, 16

3 1 ;I

4 151

I6 :

I7 18191

:L o !I

.-111/121

I

Cal. 2d at 643.)

As appellant concedes, there is no public office of "city

prosecutor" in the City of Costa Mesa, and attorney Peelman is not

a public officer. Government Code § 3 6 9 0 0 ( a) authorizes the

prosecution of city ordinance violations "by city authorities,"

but neither attorney Peelman nor his law firm is a city

authority as that term is commonly understood. Although it has

been held that Government Code § § 37103 and 53 0 6 0 authorize a

city's "legislative body,, to contract for prosecutorial services

by a "special counsel,,, no such office was created by the 2 0 0 4

contract. (Cf.

131 Montgomery v. Superior Court of Solano County, supra , 4 6 Cal.App .3d

14 at 6 6 8 - 6 6 9 ; People ex rel. Clancy v . Superior Court, supra , 39

151 Cal.3d at 7 5 0 n. 5.) The contract designates two other members of

16 ! the firm of Jones & Mayer to serve as "contract city attorney"

and

171 "contrac t assistant city attorney," but does not designate anyone

18 else to exercise the powers and perform the duties of a public

19 prosecutorial office. (See Pacific Finance Corp. v. Lynwood (1931)

2 0 1121/!2 2 /

2 31!

2 4 1

I

2 sl/.2 6 l.2 7

28

1

14

C

a

l

.

A

p

p

.

5 0

9 ,

5

14

-

5

15

. )

"

A

l

t

h

o

u

g

h

a

n

o

f

f

ice is 'an employment,' it does not follow that every employment

is an office . A man may certa.in1y be employed under a

contract, express or implied, to do an act or perform a service

without becoming an officer. " (United States v. Maurice

(1823) 2 Brock. 96, 103, quoted in Patton v .

Board of Health (1899) 127 Cal. 3 8 8 , 3 9 5 . ) Insofar as the

2004 contract delegated the general powers and duties of the

Costa Mesa City Attorney to a private law firm or its

members, those powers and duties did not include the

authority to confer a public office

'

J. ij upon attorney Peelman - - authority to appoint subordinate officers

2 11

or employees has been statutorily reserved to the city council.

31 (Government Code § 36505; see Mon tgomery v . Super ior Cou r t of

4 1 , Solano County, supra ,

4 6 Cal.3d at 668.) Contrary to appellant 's

s !I

6 11

:I!9 :

!i

101111

12!!131

suggestion, no city ordinance authorizes a "contract" city

officer to delegate the powers and duties of his or her office

to another person. (Cf. Costa Mesa Municipal Code § 1-9,

authorizing a city officer to delegate a power or duty only

where the power or duty is conferred upon the officer "by this

Code or any other ordinance"; Costa Mesa Municipal Code § 2-

116, authorizing the city manager to appoint officers and

employees.)

Prosecutorial acts may be valid under the de facto officer

rule, notwithstanding a failure to take the constitutional oath

,

14 where the acts were performed under color of an authorized

is(!

161

171I

18 1

1912 0/,I,2111

::12 4 1

/ ,2 5 j'

2 612 7 i

2 8 iiii

a

p

p

o

i

n

t

m

e

n

t

t

o

o

f

f

i

c

e

,

b

u

t

"

t

h

e

r

e

c

a

n be no officer de facto where no officer de jure is provided

by law." (Oakland Paving Co. v. Donovan (1912) 19 Cal.App. 488,

493 -494; cf. People v. Kempley

(1928) 205 Cal. 441, 445.) Faced in the trial court with the

failure of attorney Peelman to have taken the required oath,

appellant did not show the existence of a de jure off ice

or otherwise establish his de facto authority. The trial court

properly ruled that the prosecution of respondent was performed by

attorney Peelman without the requisite official authority, and

dismissal was warranted because jurisdiction was lacking. (See

People v. Municipal Court for Ventura Judicial Dist. (Bishop)

, supra, 27 Cal.App.3d at 206.)

I l l

I l l

!

s

:

1 '.rhe reques ts f or j udicial no tice a re gr an ted . Respo nden t ' s

2 motion to strike is denied as moot. The order is affirmed.

3

4

5

6 GREGG L. PRICKETT, Acting Presiding Judge

7

8

91101111121131

i' 11 .C-

c.:. Judge

Judge

14

15 1

16

17 .i

1811l

19

20

21 /2 2

2 3 1I

.2 4 12s / 1

2 61'-)7 i!

2 s i!1