In California DUI Lawyers Association v. California Department of Motor Vehicles, the Second Appellate District confronted a challenge to the way the Department of Motor Vehicles administers hearings over pre-trial suspension of driver’s licenses for driving under the influence charges and will forever change the procedure – unless the case is overruled on appeal.

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) conducts administrative hearings to determine whether automatic suspension of a driver’s license is warranted after a driver has been arrested for driving under the influence. At these hearings, the DMV mandates that the hearing officers simultaneously act as advocates for the DMV and as triers of fact. The DMV also authorizes its managers to change hearing officers’ decisions, or order the hearing officers to change their decisions, without notice to the driver.

Based on these practices, the California DUI Lawyers Association and its counsel (collectively, CDLA) sued the DMV and its director for injunctive and declaratory relief. CDLA alleged three causes of action:

1. violation of 42 United States Code section 1983 affecting due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (section 1983);
2. violation of due process rights under Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution (state due process); and
3. “illegal expenditure of funds” under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a (section 526a)

CDLA alleged the lack of a neutral hearing officer, and the ex-Garcia communications between DMV managers and hearing officers, violate drivers’ rights to procedural due process under the California and United States Constitutions.

CDLA and the DMV each moved for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication. The trial court held CDLA did not have taxpayer standing to assert its claims. The trial court granted the DMV’s motion for summary judgment on that basis and denied CDLA’s motion for summary judgment.

The Appellate Court reversed the judgment, with instructions to vacate the orders granting the DMV’s summary judgment motion and denying CDLA’s summary judgment motion. On remand, and after further briefing, the trial court address the merits of the parties’ motions.

The trial court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment, but (1) granted the DMV’s motion for summary adjudication of CDLA’s first cause of action (section 1983); and (2) granted CDLA’s motion for summary adjudication of its second (state
due process) and third (section 526a) causes of action. The trial court concluded the DMV’s structural design allowing for ex Garcia managerial interference with the hearing officers’ decision making violated due process under the California
Constitution, and thus constituted waste under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a. The trial court also granted the DMV’s motion for summary adjudication on the following issue:
“As a matter of law, the DMV hearing officer’s dual role as advocate for the DMV and trier of fact does not violate due process.”

The trial court entered judgment in favor of the DMV on the first cause of action (section 1983), and in favor of CDLA on the second (state due process) and third (section 526a) causes of action. The judgment enjoined the DMV from maintaining or implementing a structure allowing managerial interference with hearing officers’ decision-making through “ex Garcia communications or command control.” It also found CDLA to be the prevailing party for purposes of an award of attorneys’ fees.

California DUI Lawyers Association v. California Department of Motor Vehicles was a consolidated appeal. CDLA appealed from the judgment contending the trial court erred by: (1) granting the DMV summary adjudication on the issue of whether a hearing officer’s dual roles as advocate for the DMV and adjudicator violated drivers’ due process rights; and (2) granting the DMV’s motion for summary adjudication of CDLA’s first cause of action under section 1983. The parties also both appealed from the post-judgment award of attorneys’ fees.

The Second Appellate District Court of Appeal concluded, based on the undisputed facts, that CDLA was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on each of its causes of action. and attorneys’ fee award did not constitute an abuse of discretion in light of CDLA’s additional success on appeal, although the Appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial court to reevaluate the amount of fees awarded to CDLA and to calculate the amount of fees and costs CDLA incurred on appeal.

This case opens for litigation those DUI arrests that did not result in conviction and whether such defendants can recover compensation for violation of their due process rights. However, if this applies to you, you may want to wait before you call
your attorney. The DMV may still appeal this matter. Consult with your legal counsel before taking any action.

The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.