Page 52 - 2026 Lozano Smith Brown Act Handbook

and not repeat the past action that is an alleged violation of the Brown Act. The legislative body
need not admit a violation. Specific language that must be used is set forth in the statute. It is
recommended that an unconditional commitment include specific actions, such as a formal
policy change.

If the legislative body fails to provide the unconditional commitment, legal action
may be instituted within 60 days. The legislative body may subsequently rescind the
commitment, which will then allow legal action to be commenced.

The cease-and-desist letter is not a requirement to address ongoing or threatened
future actions of the legislative body through declaratory and injunctive relief.

(TransparentGov Novato v. City of Novato (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 140; Olson v. Hornbrook
Community Services District (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 502; Center for Local Government
Accountability v. City of San Diego (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1146; Government Code §§ 54960,
54960.2)

D. THE REMEDIES FOR A VIOLATION OF THE BROWN ACT INCLUDE
NULLIFICATION OF ACTION TAKEN, CURE AND CORRECTION, THE
REQUIREMENT TO AUDIO RECORD CLOSED SESSIONS, AN AWARD OF
ATTORNEYS’ FEES, AND IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES DAMAGES

Most actions taken in violation of the Brown Act can be remedied by correction
of the violation. The cure-and-correction remedy does not apply to violations of the 24-hour
employee notice requirement. Actions taken in violation of the 24-hour notice requirement are
null and void which means that employees terminated after violating this provision may be
entitled to damages for wrongful termination.

If there is a violation of the closed session requirements, a court can order the
local agency to audio record its closed sessions. If action is taken in open session on an item
related to an illegal closed session discussion, the action can be set aside if prejudice is shown
from the violation. Prejudice will not exist if the public is afforded a full and fair opportunity to
comment on the item.

A prevailing plaintiff is entitled to costs and attorneys’ fees unless special
circumstances justify denial of such an award. A prevailing defendant (public agency) may be
awarded costs and fees only if the court finds the action was frivolous and totally lacking in
merit.

(Government Code §§ 54960, 54960.1, 54960.5; Fowler v. City of Lafayette (2020) 46
Cal.App.5th 360; TransparentGov Novato v. City of Novato (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 140; Olson v.
Hornbrook Community Services District (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 502; Galbiso v. Orosi Public
Utility District (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1063; Moreno v. City of King (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th
17; Los Angeles Times Communications v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (2003) 112
Cal.App.4th 1313.)

40 LozanoSmith.com 2026 Brown Act Handbook