basis of the alleged violation in California

2017The issue now is the County's decision (or lack thereof) with respect to bringing suit on the basis of the alleged violation of ... section 1090, and whether this decision is an exercise of discretion or a mandatory duty that County-so far, at least-has failed to perform." ( San Bernardino, at p. 687, 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 876 .) In McGee v. Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 235 , 247-248, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 251 ( McGee ), the court disagreed with the reasoning in San Bernardino and found that taxpayers had standing to bring an action alleging violation of section 1090.

2017For the reasons stated above, it is an exercise of discretion." ( Ibid . ) The court noted that the taxpayer associations made no allegations "that any present County official was involved in the alleged bribery scheme leading to [the former County supervisor]'s guilty plea, or is otherwise engaged in fraud or collusion." ( Id . at p. 688, 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 876 .) McGee was decided after San Bernardino , and the Second District declined to follow it.

2024Rather, if the trial court had found a violation of the Racial Justice Act based upon Detective Robles’s use of the phrase “honor killing” and, potentially the use of the word “honor” generally, during defendant’s police interview, the court could have redacted the challenged statements while permitting admission of the remainder of the interview, which was relevant to the disputed issues at trial.4 (See Cal. Const., art. 1, § 28, subd. (f)(2) [“[e]xcept as provided by statute hereafter enacted by a two-thirds vote of the membership in each house of the Legislature, relevant evidence shall not

2024Rather, if the trial court had found a violation of the Racial Justice Act based upon Detective Robles’s use of the phrase “honor killing” and, potentially the use of the word “honor” generally, during defendant’s police interview, the court could have redacted the challenged statements while permitting admission of the remainder of the interview, which was relevant to the disputed issues at trial.4 (See Cal. Const., art. 1, § 28, subd. (f)(2) [“[e]xcept as provided by statute hereafter enacted by a two-thirds vote of the membership in each house of the Legislature, relevant evidence shall not

2018(See Mendoza v. Town of Ross (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 625, 631 [“We affirm if any ground offered in support of the demurrer was well taken” (italics added)].)5 DISPOSITION The trial court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s claims against the defendants is reversed and the trial court’s May 30, 2017 order sustaining defendants’ demurrer is vacated.