California Codes

Cal. Government Code § 54960.1 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)The district attorney or any interested person may commence an action by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination that an action taken by a legislative body of a local agency in violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, 54956, or 54956.5 is null and void under this section. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a legislative body from curing or correcting an action challenged pursuant to this section.

(b)Prior to any action being commenced pursuant to subdivision (a), the district attorney or interested person shall make a demand of the legislative body to cure or correct the action alleged to have been taken in violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, 54956, or 54956.5. The demand shall be in writing and clearly describe the challenged action of the legislative body and nature of the alleged violation.

(c)(1)The written demand shall be made within 90 days from the date the action was taken unless the action was taken in an open session but in violation of Section 54954.2, in which case the written demand shall be made within 30 days from the date the action was taken.

(2)Within 30 days of receipt of the demand, the legislative body shall cure or correct the challenged action and inform the demanding party in writing of its actions to cure or correct or inform the demanding party in writing of its decision not to cure or correct the challenged action.

(3)If the legislative body takes no action within the 30-day period, the inaction shall be deemed a decision not to cure or correct the challenged action, and the 15-day period to commence the action described in subdivision (a) shall commence to run the day after the 30-day period to cure or correct expires.

(4)Within 15 days of receipt of the written notice of the legislative body’s decision to cure or correct, or not to cure or correct, or within 15 days of the expiration of the 30-day period to cure or correct, whichever is earlier, the demanding party shall be required to commence the action pursuant to subdivision (a) or thereafter be barred from commencing the action.

(d)An action taken that is alleged to have been taken in violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, 54956, or 54956.5 shall not be determined to be null and void if any of the following conditions exist:

(1)The action taken was in substantial compliance with Sections 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, 54956, and 54956.5.

(2)The action taken was in connection with the sale or issuance of notes, bonds, or other evidences of indebtedness or any contract, instrument, or agreement thereto.

(3)The action taken gave rise to a contractual obligation, including a contract let by competitive bid other than compensation for services in the form of salary or fees for professional services, upon which a party has, in good faith and without notice of a challenge to the validity of the action, detrimentally relied.

(4)The action taken was in connection with the collection of any tax.

(5)Any person, city, city and county, county, district, or any agency or subdivision of the state alleging noncompliance with subdivision (a) of Section 54954.2, Section 54956, or Section 54956.5, because of any defect, error, irregularity, or omission in the notice given pursuant to those provisions, had actual notice of the item of business at least 72 hours prior to the meeting at which the action was taken, if the meeting was noticed pursuant to Section 54954.2, or 24 hours prior to the meeting at which the action was taken if the meeting was noticed pursuant to Section 54956, or prior to the meeting at which the action was taken if the meeting is held pursuant to Section 54956.5.

(e)During any action seeking a judicial determination pursuant to subdivision (a) if the court determines, pursuant to a showing by the legislative body that an action alleged to have been taken in violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, 54956, or 54956.5 has been cured or corrected by a subsequent action of the legislative body, the action filed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be dismissed with prejudice.

(f)The fact that a legislative body takes a subsequent action to cure or correct an action taken pursuant to this section shall not be construed or admissible as evidence of a violation of this chapter.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2021 · leading case: Moreno v. City of King, 22 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1018 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Moreno v. City of King, 22 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1018 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). “(Gov. Code, § 54960.1.) Moreno made a timely demand for a cure in January 2003 when he asked the City to cure its failure to indicate in its “agendas and minutes” that action to terminate his employment would be considered at the Council’s October 17 meeting.”

Hernandez v. Town of Apple Valley, 7 Cal. App. 5th 194 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). “5 shall not be determined to be null and void if any of the following conditions exist: [¶] (1) The action taken was in substantial compliance with Sections 54953, 54954.”

Cnty. of Del Norte v. City of Crescent City, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3078 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). “(Gov. Code, § 54960.1, subds. (a), (b).) Depending on the particular violation, the demand must be made within 30 or 90 days from the date of the action.”

Centinela Hosp. Assn. v. City of Inglewood, 90 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8977 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990). “) Government Code section 54960.1 provides in pertinent part that, “(a) Any interested person may commence an action by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination that an action taken by a legislative body of a local agency in violation of…”

Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5872 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). “) If such a violation has occurred, the Legislature has provided statutory remedies for such violations. These include injunctive, mandatory or declaratory relief to prevent or stop violations or threatened violations or to tape-record closed sessions (Gov.”

Daly v. San Bernardino Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors (Cal. 2021). · cites it 3× “The Court of Appeal opined that the trial court’s order was not automatically stayed as a mandatory injunction because “upon a finding that [the Board’s] appointment of real 2 Government Code section 54960.1, subdivision (a), provides: “The district attorney or any interested…”

(PS) Gifford v. Hornbrook Fire Prot. Dist. (E.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 2× “see Cal. Govt. Code § 54960.1 (d)(1). Finally, even if a plaintiff has made 20 a threshold case to set aside an agency’s action, the Brown Act violations will not necessarily 21 invalidate a decision.”

SPRAWLDEF v. City of Richmond (N.D. Cal. 2020). · cites it 2× “The petition herein is an action 15 under a provision of the Brown Act, Government Code section 54960.1, which provides: 16 district attorney or any interested person may commence an action by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination that an…”

David Welch v. Cochise Bd. of Supervisors (Ariz. 2021). “, Cal. Gov. Code § 54960.1 (e) (enforcement action “shall be dismissed with prejudice” if open-meeting violation “cured or corrected by a subsequent action”); 1 Vt.”

— Cal. Government Code § 54960.1(c)(3) — 1 case

(PS) Gifford v. Hornbrook Fire Prot. Dist. (E.D. Cal. 2021). “see Cal. Govt. Code § 54960.1 (d)(1). Finally, even if a plaintiff has made 20 a threshold case to set aside an agency’s action, the Brown Act violations will not necessarily 21 invalidate a decision.”

— Cal. Government Code § 54960.1(e) — 1 case

SPRAWLDEF v. City of Richmond (N.D. Cal. 2020). “The petition herein is an action 15 under a provision of the Brown Act, Government Code section 54960.1, which provides: 16 district attorney or any interested person may commence an action by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination that an…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.