County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates (2007)

(Samuels v. Mix (1999) 22 Cal.4th 1, 5, 8 ; County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 898, 912 ["The time bar of a statute of limitations may be raised by demurrer '[w]here the complaint discloses 12 In concluding that Plaintiffs' three causes of action are barred by the 60-day statute of limitations, we need not, and do not, rely on the three exhibits that Plaintiffs argue the trial court erroneously granted judicial notice of, and relied …

(See County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 898, 904 [declining to consider whether a county's constitutional challenge to Government Code section 17516c was time-barred by section 341.5: "This statute of limitations defense, which should have been raised before the trial court, is not cognizable on this appeal"]; Moore v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 373, 382 [" 'It is well established that the statute of limitations is a …

(County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 898, 905 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 762 ].) The purpose of this section “ ‘is to preclude the state from shifting financial responsibility for carrying out governmental functions to local agencies, which are “ill equipped” to assume increased financial responsibilities because of the taxing and spending limitations that articles XIII A and XIII B impose. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (County of San Diego v. Sta…

(See County of San Diego v. State of California (1997) 15 Cal.4th 68, 80-81 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 134 , 931 P.2d 312 ]; County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 898, 905 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 762 ].) • One key component of article XIII B’s spending limitations is contained in section 6, which states; “Whenever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, the State shall provide a subv…

(See County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 898, 920 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 762 ] [Commission resolves mandate questions first].) In the Mandate Reimbursement Process II test claim decision, the Commission noted that it had no authority to refuse to apply Government Code section 17556, subdivision (f), even if the subdivision was inconsistent with the Constitution.

A federal law provides in part that “If a public agency other than an educational agency fails to provide or pay for the special education and related services ... the local educational agency . . . shall provide or pay for such services . . . .” ( 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (a)(12)(B)(ii).) But the trial court found that some of the burden shifted from the counties to local school districts “could qualify as [a] ‘higher level of service.’ ” It is for the Commission to sort these matt…

See Minton v. Cavaney, 56 Cal.2d 576, 581 , 15 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 364 P.2d 473 (1961); see also County of Los Angeles v. Comm’n on State Mandates, 150 Cal.App.4th 898, 912 , 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 762 (Ct.App.2007) (“Forfeiture of a time-bar defense transpires by the failure to raise the applicable statute of limitations in the answer”); Gailing v. Rose, Klein & Marias, 43 Cal.App.4th 1570, 1577 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 381 (Ct.App.1996) (“The defendant must raise ... [the statute-of-limitatio…