In a recently published decision, the Second District Court of Appeal in Desolina Di Lauro v. City of Burbank, held that a plaintiff could not maintain a class action under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). The plaintiff, who had allegedly requested past utility bills through a city website and did not receive a response, filed a CPRA lawsuit against the City on her behalf and similarly situated class members. Key points from the decision:
1. CPRA does not permit class claims.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the CPRA does not allow class actions, even with sufficient allegations for an individual CPRA claim.
2. Judicial relief under CPRA is limited to individual who made the records request.
The CPRA restricts judicial relief only to the individual or entity that are named on the submitted records request, and only if the agency improperly withholds records. (Gov. Code § 7923.000.) This confirms that only individuals or entities named in a records request may pursue CPRA claims, provided they can show the agency failed to adequately respond.
3. No CPRA Relief for Unnamed Parties.
The Court held extending CPRA relief to non-named parties does not enhance public access, as the law is meant to determine whether a specific requestor is entitled to records.
Lessons Learned: This ruling highlights the importance of best practices for both citizens and agencies under the CPRA, especially when it comes to requests submitted through websites. Agency websites should make it clear how citizens can make CPRA requests, and agencies need to systematically monitor websites for any requests to ensure timely responses. Individuals and entities should take care to identify themselves in CPRA requests so that they can maintain the right to enforce the CPRA in court as needed. This is especially important as many agencies permit individuals to submit anonymous requests online—often to protect privacy—but such anonymity can preclude the requester from having standing to seek judicial relief.
