On March 28, 2025, the Court of Appeal in Desolina Di Lauro v. City of Burbank held that a plaintiff's alleged California Public Records Act ("CPRA") and California Constitution class claims were barred, but that the plaintiff made a sufficient allegation for an individual CPRA claim. The court made clear that the plaintiff had not raised sufficient facts to warrant class relief under the CPRA, and went on to suggest that such a remedy is all but impossible. The case also serves as an important reminder for public agencies to promptly respond to CPRA requests.
Background
The City of Burbank (the "City") maintains a website with an option to submit CPRA requests electronically. The City's Department of Water and Power ("DWP") has its own website, but during the time in question, there was no link to the City's website or any other information about how someone could request public records. Plaintiff/appellant Desolina Di Lauro ("Plaintiff") received a water bill from DWP that she thought was erroneous. She used DWP's website to request past bills to determine why her utilities increased. She sent a CPRA records request via the "Contact Us" portal on the DWP's website on January 9, 15, and March 3 of 2023. The plaintiff never received a response. On May 2, 2023, Plaintiff complained on social media and was contacted by a customer service representative, but did not receive the records or an email extending the response time.
The plaintiff filed a complaint, suing on behalf of herself and similarly situated class members. The complaint alleged a single cause of action for violation of the CPRA and the California Constitution based on the City's failure to comply with its obligation to respond to a CPRA request and to make such records available for inspection within the required time. Plaintiff alleged the City's failure to respond to her 2023 requests, and the absence of any means to request public records through the DWP website, violated the CPRA.
Plaintiff asserted claims on behalf of herself and two classes: (1) the "Timeliness Class," defined as all persons who requested records from the City but the City did not meet the relevant CPRA deadline; and (2) the "Burbank Class," defined as all residents of the City who had been prohibited or deterred from submitting a CPRA request because "the DWP and other specific departments within the City" do not offer a means to submit a CPRA request.
The City filed a general demurrer, arguing Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action under the CPRA, the purported class action was barred, and the purported class action was not likely to be certified.
The trial court sustained the City's demurrer without leave to amend. As to the class action, the trial court agreed with the City that the language of the CPRA and case law limit plaintiffs' ability to pursue a class claim because the only party who has made a request for records is entitled to pursue judicial relief. As to the individual claim, the trial court found that because the City's website provided a method for submitting CPRA requests, the plaintiff's claim was solely based on DWP's failure to provide a method for submitting a CPRA claim through DWP's website. The court found that the City's duty to assist members to identify records or overcome practical obstacles was not a clear enough mandate to support the claim that the absence of CPRA information on the DWP website violated the CPRA.
The plaintiff timely appealed.
The Court of Appeal's Decision
The Court of Appeal agreed that the plaintiff was barred from bringing a class action under the CPRA and California Constitution but held that the plaintiff was permitted to bring her individual CPRA claim.
Plaintiff Barred from Bringing her Class Action CPRA and California Constitution Claim
The Court's CPRA class action decision was premised on Government Code section 7923.000, which states, "Any person may institute a proceeding for injunctive or declarative relief, or for a writ of mandate, in any court of competent jurisdiction, to enforce that person's right under this division to inspect or receive a copy of any public record or class of public records." The Court cited Filarsky v. Superior Court, a 2002 California Supreme Court case, that precluded a public agency from filing a declaratory relief action to adjudicate its obligation to disclose records subject to a CPRA request. The Filarsky case found the CPRA's language "contemplates a declaratory relief proceeding commenced only by an individual or entity seeking disclosure of public records, and not by the public agency from which disclosure is sought. The Court also cited San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist., which cited Filarsky, to hold that the CPRA "provides neither explicit nor implicit authority for one person to enforce another person's inspection rights."
The Court thus concluded that the trial court correctly interpreted the statutory language of section 7923.000 as precluding the plaintiff from pursuing class relief for a CPRA violation.
The plaintiff made various other arguments as to why class relief should be granted, which the court rejected. Plaintiff argued (1) public policy favors class actions; (2) the California Constitution requires a broad statutory construction of the right to public records; and (3) class actions are allowed under the Freedom of Information Act and Washington State's public records law. For each of these arguments, the court found that the text of the CPRA and the case law interpreting the CPRA did not warrant class relief under the CPRA.
The court seemed to suggest that class actions under the CPRA are nearly impossible to proceed with, if not outright prohibited. Further, the court found the economic feasibility benefits of class relief for a CPRA claim to be questionable since successful CPRA enforcement actions result in court costs and attorney's fees for the record-seeking individual.
The court quickly dismissed Plaintiff's California Constitution class relief claim, finding the language of the Constitution alone did not support Plaintiff's claim and that her claim would suffer the same certification issues.
Plaintiff Permitted to Bring an Individual CPRA Claim
The Court's analysis of the plaintiff's individual claim was straightforward. The Court highlighted that an agency must respond in writing to a CPRA request within 10 days of receiving the request, with certain exceptions. The plaintiff alleged she made a records request which triggered the duty to respond and the City did not respond in a timely manner nor request the records. The court found these allegations were sufficient to state an individual claim for relief under the CPRA.
The City attempted to argue that the demurrer was correctly granted because the court could have taken judicial notice that showed the City's records did not reflect the plaintiff's records request submission. The court stated that even if it had taken judicial notice, all that would do for the City is raise a factual dispute, which was not appropriate for appeal. The Court found that because the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts for a cause of action under the CPRA, the demurrer to the individual claim was improperly granted and should be decided on its merits.
Take Aways
Di Lauro serves as an important reminder for public agencies to regularly review communications received by the public and respond to records requests. To aid in this effort, agency websites should have a page for, or a link to, a place where members of the public can submit requests for public records, and those requests should be reviewed regularly.
In additional to an important reminder, Di Lauro is also a positive case for public agencies, making clear that the risk of a CPRA class action is low, perhaps impossible.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
