GILB v. CHIANG Part-II
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>GILB v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >GILB v. CHIANG</b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/2/10<br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u>CERTIFIED<br /> FOR PUBLICATION</u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF<br /> APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/>THIRD APPELLATE<br /> DISTRICT<br /> <br/>(Sacramento)<br /> <br/>----<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=379 valign=top ><br /> <br/>DAVID A. GILB, as Director,<br /> etc. et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiffs and Respondents,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>JOHN CHIANG, as Controller,<br /> etc. et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendants and Appellants;<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL<br /> UNION, etc. et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Interveners and Appellants.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=245 valign=top ><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>C061947<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>(Super.<br /> Ct. No. 34200880000026CUWMGDS)<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >Story continued from part I…..</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Thus, we conclude the judgment's first two declarations --<br /> that DPA has authority over the Controller in this regard and that the pay<br /> letter was within its authority -- are not moot.<br /> <br/> Even if they were<br /> moot, we would decide them under the mootness<br /> exception for public interest issues. <br /> Thus, â€