HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 AMICI BRIEF 02-07-94NO '~0
2-7-94
'C~¥ %
in t e r- C o rn
U~TE-
JANUARY 28, 1994
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: REQUEST, THAT TUSTIN JOIN IN AN AMICI CURIAE BRIEF
RECOMMENDATION
Pleasure of the Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND
Attached is a letter requesting that Tustin join as a "friend of
the Court" in support of the position of cities, Fire Districts,
etc. regarding the attempts of some counties to preempt the
providing of ambulance services county-wide, through a contract
between the county and a private ambulance company.
The League of California Cities, through its Legal Advocacy
Committee, recommends that cities join the brief.
If it is the City Council's pleasure to join, it may so authorize
by Minute Order.
$~M~S G. ROURKE
~ty Attorney
JGR:jab:R 1:0128930C-543.jab)
Enclosure
cc: W. Douglas Franks
William Huston
ST^NLE'~ '~. KRONICK DONA1 D ~"
APOtFH MOS~OVlTZ THOrn,S C. HUGHES.
ED~'AgD J. TI[D~A~N JOH~ L BU~Y
LLOYD HINKELmAN
CL~eeO~p ~ Sc~u~z
jA~fs E. THOMPSON
Ro~e~t E. MUrpHY
~OBE~T S. sHELBURNE
JAmEs M. BOYD. Jr.
ja~T K. GOLDSMITH
~OBIN LESLIE ~TE~A~T
~ILLIAM A,
ROBerT A. ~UHDST~OM
~UTHANN O. ZIEGLER
PAUL W. TOZER
RmHAan H. HART. J.~
MICHAEL A GROg
_P. ADDISON COVERT
THOM^S W. BIRMINGHAM
JAN K. DAMESYN
DEgORAH J. F~C~
~NN M. FREERS
KRONICK
MOSKOVlTZ
oTIEDEMANN
Qg GIRARD
^ PROF~.SSIONAL CORPORATION
December 22, 1993
ANN M. SIPRELL:
MICHAEL
ANTHONY 13. ~.{ANZANETT!
J^NIS J. PURTEE
DAwN M. Ross
J£FFErY M. STAR-~KY
JAMES SCOT
MARK L. HEFTER
DONNA M.
JEFFREY A. MITCHELL
E,.~,:-:- J. Pi-:-:
~T,':._.:- OOME~ C-EI-Ty
PA_'_ .: KELL*.
OF ZT,?; S EL
Re: County of San Bernardino and Inland Counties
~m~~v M~d~aI ~ncy, et al v ~y
Bernardino, et al.
Dear City A%torney:
The purpose of this letter is to ask that you joi- in
an amicus brief which this office will be submitting in the
above-referenced case. Currently, the cities of SacramenEc ~nd
Folsom, all fire districts within the County of Sacramento, :he
California Fire Districts Association, and the California Fzre
Chiefs Association have agreed to support the amicus brief. In
addition, the League of Cities' Legal Advocacy Commi~5ee has
reviewed this matter and voted to recommend to cities that 3key
join the brief.
The litigation concerns Health & Safety Code sec~'3n
1797 et seq., especially Section 1797.201. The basic issue tn
this lawsuit is whether a city or fire district can provide
emergency medical services, including emergency ambulance
service, in the manner and scope, and at the level o~ ~ervi:e the
city or fire district deems appropriate, or whether 5he
city's/fire district's provision of such services is subjec- ~c
aut,,o~ ..... , and/or veto of the ~,~,, ~h~,--= ~-~
the control, ' ~ ~.=~4~
local emergency medical services agency. A related-issue fs
~hether a city which receives 9-1-1 calls may direct ~hat f:s
~mbulances respond to a medical emergency, rather than the zcunzy
directing that response shall be made from ambulances owned 5nd
operated by a private company under contract to the County.
Within th~ County of San Bernardino, the County through
its local emergency medical services agency attempted to bi-~k
the City of San Bernardino and fire districts from providing
emergency_ambulance service,_ except, on such terms as direc5e/ b-/
the County. The County also attempted to require the City zr
have 9-1-1 emergency medical calls serviced by a private
ambulance company under contract with the County.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
400 CAPITOL MALL, 27'" FLOOR SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814-4417 TELEPHONE (916) 321-4500 F~X (91d) 5-
December 22, 1993
Page 2
9801.1
,o/
Should the appellate court rule in favor of the County
of San Bernardino and the p~ivate ambulance company, cities and
fire districts throughout the state would be foreclosed from
providing emergency medical services, except 6n such terms as the
County may dictate. Even the most basic decisions, e.g. adding
ambulances, providing paramedic services, or increasing the
number of emergency medical technicians would be subject to
county control.
We anticipate filing the amicus brief on or around
January 7, 1994. While I would aPpreciate hearing from you prior
to that time, I recognize that this time frame is difficult,
especially in light of the holidays. Therefore, I plan to file a
supplemental notice to the court on or around January 25, 1994,
indicating which cities have opted to support the brief. I would
appreciate hearing from you no later than January 21, 1994, to
indicate if your city wishes to support this brief. For your
convenience, I have enclosed a form you may fill out and return
to my office to indicate that your city wishes to be identified
as supporting this brief. Of course, if you have any questions
relating to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
--%~i~ncqre 1 Y, ~
RUTHANN ~. ZIEGLER
RGZ/dll
Enclosure
cc w/enc.:
Joanne Speers, General Counsel
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
123099.1