Printable View   Bookmark and Share       sign in

AdvocacyPublic, legislative and legal advocacy

PUBLISHED January 2016

This case addresses the same basic two questions addressed in Davis v. Fresno USD: (i) whether Government Code section 1090 applies to corporate consultants and (ii) whether the lease-leaseback agreement at issue in the case is proper. The ELA amicus brief just focused on the latter question. The ELA first argues that Davis was wrongly decided. But the ELA also argues that, if Davis was properly decided that the specific lease-leaseback agreement at issue in this case was legal. Specifically, the fact that lease payments were made by the district to the contractor for 6 months after Notice of Completion makes the lease-leaseback agreement comply with Davis. (The ELA filed a similar brief in McGee and California Taxpayers Action Network v. Balfour Beatty Construction and Torrance USD.)

The ELA filed an amicus brief on December 14, 2015, in support of the district.