COMPLIANCE INFO_PRE 2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Applying the principles of Hy-Lond to this case, the 2 Judgment would be improper only if it limited the statutory 3 powers or rights of a State agency other than DTSC, e.g. , the 4 Board or other counties, without legal authority. 5 Clearly, as explained above, the Judgment does not 6 interfere at all with any of the lawful powers or rights of the 7 Board or of other counties , except as expressly authorized by 8 statute. All of the determinations made in the Judgment were 9 reserved to DTSC. The Board retained the only right that it had 1.0 previously, i . e. , to collect the taxes and fees imposed under the 11 Hazardous Waste Control Law based on determinations as to the 12 nature and quantity of materials made by DTSC. The Judgment also 13 did not limit the rights of any other counties , because in 14 contrast to the facts in Hy-Lond, Sumiden operates in only the 15 one county over which the DA has jurisdiction. 16 Since the DA was authorized to bring this action on 17 behalf of the People, and the Judgment was within the bounds of 18 the DA' s authority, the Judgment is binding against the People 19 and against the State itself . This Motion must be denied because 20 this action has been resolved by DTSC, the agency responsible for 21 enforcing the Hazardous Waste Control Law, fully and finally in 22 favor of the People . 5 23 24 5 County of Sacramento v. Central Pacific Railroad Co, 61 25 Cal . 250 (1862) , cited by the Board, stands for the proposition that a district attorney may not enter into a settlement which 26 improperly limits the rights of the state agency with authority over the subject matter of the suit . In contrast to the facts 27 herein, in that case it was clear that the district attorney did not have authority to settle on the terms that it did. The 28 decision also was based upon the supervisory power of the attorney general and the improper form of the judgment , elements which are not present here . 1.0