GILB v. CHIANG Part-III
<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 II…..</b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/>The Controller also cites <i >Madden v. Riley</i> (1942) 53 Cal.App.2d 814, where this court said the<br /> approval, by the Governor and Department of Finance, of travel expenses for a<br /> law enforcement officer to attend a convention in Reno did not preclude the<br /> controller from examining the facts to ascertain whether the business of the<br /> convention in fact included duties incident to the officer's employment. (<i >Id</i>.<br /> at p. 820.) However, as explained in <i >Tirapelle</i><i<br /> >, supra</i>, 20 Cal.App.4th at p. 1329, <i<br /> >Madden v. Riley</i> involved the<br /> determination of the factual circumstances necessary to establish the validity<br /> of the claims. Here, it is undisputed<br /> that the employees' claims are valid. A<br /> delay in partial payment pursuant to <i >White<br /> v. Davis</i> would not call for the Controller to determine any factual circumstances.<br /> <br/> The Controller and<br /> intervener SEIU argue DPA's pay letter lacked<br /> authority because section 19826, subdivision (b), (fn. 18, <i >ante</i>) prohibits DPA from adjusting salaries for â€