Section 1808

Citation: Section 1808
Parent Document: McHugh v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 777 P.2d 91 (1989)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1989-08-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1156663/mchugh-v-santa-monica-rent-cont... ↗

Full Text

1,286 chars

The high court upheld the agency’s power to adjudicate the counterclaim. The opinion concluded that exercise of such power does not violate the “structural interests” that inform *386the judicial powers clause. (478 U.S. at pp. 850-857 [92 L.Ed.2d at pp. 692-697].) It suggested, however, that had the parties not consented to agency adjudication of the counterclaim, resolution of that matter would have violated the customer’s “personal right” under article III, section 1 to a judicial determination of the broker’s counterclaim. (Id. at pp. 848-857 [92 L.Ed.2d at pp. 690-697]; see also Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corp. (1989) 489 U.S. _, _ [103 L.Ed.2d 602, 618, 109 S.Ct. 1361, 1371] [usury and breach of fiduciary duty claims under state law involved “ ‘private rights’ which are at the ‘core’ of ‘matters normally reserved to article III courts’ ”; allowing administrative agency to resolve such suits would “raise[ ] serious constitutional difficulties”] [dictum].) Had the CFTC case presented the agency’s authority to adjudicate only the reparations claim, it appears that the parties’ consent to the administrative forum would have been of little or no significance. (See CFTC, supra, 478 U.S. at pp. 854-855 [92 L.Ed.2d at p. 695].)

Other Sections in This Document (387)

Full Text