## Facts

- A Los Angeles taxpayer sued the City of Los Angeles and the zoo director under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a, alleging the Los Angeles Zoo’s elephant-handling practices violated Penal Code animal-cruelty provisions.
- The alleged practices included use of bullhooks and electric shock and maintaining inadequate living conditions for elephants; the theory was that municipal spending supporting such conduct was “illegal” or “wasteful.”
- After initial summary judgment for the City on justiciability grounds was reversed on appeal, the case proceeded to a bench trial.
- The trial court issued declaratory and injunctive relief regulating elephant care, including prohibiting bullhooks and electric shock, requiring exercise, and requiring regular rototilling of the enclosure.
- On a subsequent appeal, the City argued the requested equitable relief was barred by Civil Code section 3369’s prohibition on granting specific or preventive relief “to enforce a penal law,” subject to limited exceptions.

## Issues

1. Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine barred the City from raising, on the second appeal, a Civil Code section 3369 argument not presented in the first appeal.
2. Whether the “as otherwise provided by law” clause in Civil Code section 3369 permits equitable relief in a taxpayer action under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a when the asserted illegality is a Penal Code violation.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and set aside the injunctive and declaratory relief.
- Law of the case did not bar the City’s section 3369 argument because the issue was not raised and resolved in the earlier appeal, which addressed justiciability.
- The taxpayer action, as pleaded and tried, sought equitable enforcement of Penal Code provisions and was therefore barred by Civil Code section 3369 absent a qualifying exception.
- Code of Civil Procedure section 526a did not supply the requisite statutory authorization to fit within section 3369’s “as otherwise provided by law” exception.

## Legal Principles

- Law of the case generally binds only issues actually presented and resolved on a prior appeal; it does not preclude new legal arguments not previously decided.
- Civil Code section 3369 bars specific or preventive relief to enforce a penal law, except in nuisance cases or where the Legislature has otherwise expressly authorized such relief.
- A taxpayer action under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a, standing alone, does not constitute explicit legislative authorization to enjoin conduct solely because it violates the Penal Code.
- Equity will not be used to enforce criminal statutes in a manner that bypasses criminal-procedure safeguards unless the Legislature clearly creates a civil enforcement mechanism.

## Conclusion

The court held that a taxpayer suit cannot obtain injunctive or declaratory relief that effectively enforces Penal Code animal-cruelty provisions, because Civil Code section 3369 bars such equitable enforcement absent explicit legislative authorization, and section 526a does not provide that authorization.


Leider v. Lewis, 2 Cal. 5th 1121 (Cal. 2017)