Kathryn Burton, a resident of San Diego, has taken legal action against the San Diego City Council and its members, alleging violations of California's open meeting laws in their approval of franchise agreements with San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E). On November 20, 2024, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District in California affirmed a judgment from the Superior Court of San Diego County dismissing Burton's claims. The lawsuit was initially filed by Burton on June 16, 2021, challenging the legality of the City Council's actions.
Burton's complaint centers around allegations that the City Council violated the Ralph M. Brown Act by engaging in a "secret serial meeting" to discuss and decide on approving new franchise agreements with SDG&E. These agreements granted SDG&E exclusive rights to provide gas and electric services to San Diego residents. Burton contends that this alleged secretive conduct was facilitated through communications involving the mayor as an intermediary. The lawsuit sought to have these agreements declared null and void due to these alleged violations.
The trial court allowed SDG&E to intervene as a defendant alongside the City defendants. Both parties successfully moved for summary judgment on Burton's Brown Act claim, arguing that she failed to comply with statutory prelitigation demand requirements. Specifically, they asserted that Burton did not personally issue a written demand for correction or cure before filing her lawsuit—a procedural prerequisite under section 54960.1 of the Government Code.
Burton appealed this decision, maintaining that she had substantially complied with the demand requirement because her attorney had previously sent letters demanding corrective action regarding the alleged Brown Act violations. However, these letters were not explicitly sent on behalf of Burton at that time. The appellate court found no merit in Burton’s appeal and upheld the lower court’s ruling, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural requirements.
In her appeal, Burton also contested SDG&E’s right to intervene in her case but given that summary judgment was affirmed against her claims regardless of SDG&E’s involvement, this issue was deemed moot by the appellate court.
The legal representation for Kathryn Burton was provided by Aguirre & Severson with attorneys Michael J. Aguirre and Maria C. Severson leading her case. Defending attorneys included Mara W. Elliot from the City Attorney's office along with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher representing SDG&E. The case was presided over by Judge Eddie C. Sturgeon under Case ID No. 37-2021-00026209-CU-WM-CTL.