The parties do not dispute that, as a general matter, the EMS Act precludes cities
from regulating the provision of emergency medical services. The only factual dispute
presented in this case is whether the City regulated the administration of nonemergency
ambulance services as of June 1, 1980, such that it was entitled to continue doing so
under grandfathering provisions of the EMS Act. (§1797.201.) The parties tried this
factual dispute in a court trial; the trial court issued a statement of decision concluding
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.
2 Neither party’s pleadings were included as part of the record in this appeal. However, the City filed a cross-complaint seeking an injunction prohibiting Symons from further operation in violation of RMC section 5.66.020. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction against Symons on the City’s cross-complaint, and we upheld the trial court’s issuance of the preliminary injunction on appeal in City of Riverside v. Symons Ambulance et al. (June 21, 2017, E064693) [nonpub. opn.] (City of Riverside).
2
that Symons had failed to meet its burden of proof on the issue; and judgment was
entered in favor of the City.
Symons appeals, arguing that the judgment must be reversed because: (1) the trial
court abused its discretion by admitting testimony of city employees regarding the
interpretation of two city ordinances enacted in 1975 and 1980 (Ordinance 4183 and
Ordinance 4768, respectively); (2) the trial court’s factual finding that the City regulated
nonemergency ambulance services as of June 1980 is not supported by substantial
evidence; and (3) RMC section 5.66.020 is invalid as a matter of law because it violates
federal anti-trust law. We disagree with each of these contentions and affirm the
judgment.
II. BACKGROUND
A. The EMS Act and Section 1797.201
“ ‘The EMS Act aims to achieve integration and coordination among various
government agencies and EMS providers.’ ” (City of Oxnard v. County of Ventura
(2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1010, 1015.) It “ ‘create[s] a comprehensive system governing
virtually every aspect of prehospital emergency medical services’ ” and “ ‘accomplishes
this integration through what is essentially a two-tiered system of regulation.’ ” (Valley
Medical Transport, Inc v. Apple Valley Fire Protection Dist. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 747, 754
(Valley Medical).) “The two tiers consist of a state Authority, which ‘performs a number
of different functions relating to the coordination of EMS throughout the state’ (ibid.),
and an EMS agency established by a county . . . which plans, implements, and evaluates
emergency medical service systems on a countywide or multicounty basis . . . .” (Ibid.)
3
Generally, cities are “afforded no particular role” in administration of this local EMS
agency. (County of San Bernardino v. City of San Bernardino (1997) 15 Cal.4th 909,
916 (County of San Bernardino).)
However, the EMS Act includes a “grandfathering” provision in section 1797.201.
(Valley Medical, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 758; § 1797.201.) Section 1797.201, “allow[s]
cities . . . to maintain control of the services they operated or contracted for in June 1980,
and permit[s] them to make decisions as to the appropriate manner of providing those
services.” (County of San Bernardino, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 930.) The grandfathering
provision permits a city to retain this administrative control “[u]ntil such time that an
agreement is reached” with a county “regarding the provision of prehospital emergency
medical services for that city” (§ 1797.201) but “does not require cities . . . to enter an
agreement by a particular time” (County of San Bernardino, at p. 930).
B. Relevant Evidence Presented at Trial3
The central factual dispute identified by both parties at trial was whether the City
regulated the provision of ambulance services as of June 1, 1980, such that the City was
entitled to continue regulating those services under section 1797.201.
3 Because the issues raised on appeal address only the validity of RMC section 5.66.020 pursuant to section 1797.201 of the EMS Act, we summarize only the evidence relevant to this issue. The trial also involved evidence of Symons’s alleged violations of RMC section 5.66.020. However, on appeal, the parties do not dispute that Symons operated ambulances without first obtaining a franchise or permit with the City in violation of that ordinance.
4
1. City Ordinances
The evidence at trial included multiple ordinances adopted by the City from 1975
to the time of trial. Ordinance 4183 was adopted in 1975 and granted a franchise to
Goodhew Ambulance Service (Goodhew) “to operate authorized emergency ambulance
vehicles” within the City’s geographic limits. Ordinance No. 4768 was adopted in March
1980, and again granted a franchise to Goodhew “to operate authorized emergency
ambulance vehicles” within the City’s geographic limits.
The City adopted subsequent ordinances extending the term of Goodhew’s
franchise through at least 1999, without substantive change to the scope or conditions of
the original franchise.4 However, Ordinance No. 16005 (Ordinance 16005), which
extended the term of Goodhew’s franchise from March 1985 through January 1988, was
not formally adopted until after the effective date of the extension.
In September 1989, the City adopted an ordinance adding chapter 5.66 to the
municipal code. This chapter provided a more comprehensive set of definitions and rules
governing the operation of ambulances within the City’s geographic limit, including the
franchise and permit requirement set forth in section 5.66.020. However, the ordinance
also expressly provided that this addition to the municipal code would not “affect the
continued existence, operation and validity” of the existing franchise granted to
Goodhew.
4 The City did change the name of the grantee to that of successor companies who acquired Goodhew’s operations through merger and acquisition.
5
2. Witness Testimony
The deputy fire chief of administration for the City of Riverside Fire Department
testified that he was originally hired in 1993 and had been assigned as the City’s
ambulance administrator since 2015. His duties required him to be familiar with the
statutes and ordinances pertaining to ambulance operation, as well as the City’s franchise
and contract agreements pertaining to ambulance operation. The deputy chief explained
that, in the context of ambulance transports, the terms “emergency” and “nonemergency”
are not used to describe a type or level of service. Instead, the terms refer only to
whether the request for service originated through the 911 emergency system or another
source. As a result, the term “emergency ambulance vehicles” as used in Ordinance 4183
includes vehicles that respond to both emergency and nonemergency calls.
A battalion chief with the City of Riverside Fire Department testified that he had
been working for the City for over 20 years. Prior to working for the City, the battalion
chief worked as a paramedic for Goodhew and its successor companies from 1990
through 2000. He confirmed that the distinction between “emergency” and
“nonemergency” transports is based upon how the call for service originated and not the
type of vehicle or service being provided. He also testified that while working as a
paramedic from 1990 through 2000, he performed both emergency and nonemergency
transports within the City’s geographic limits on behalf of Goodhew.
A medical doctor testified that he is shareholder, current member of the board of
directors, and former chief operating officer of Symons. He has been involved in the
provision of emergency medical services in various capacities since 1991. Given this
6
experience, he has followed the various laws and regulations relating to the provision of
EMS services. The doctor testified that “there’s a lot of different definitions on
emergency ambulance,” but he admitted that in “the general common usage,” the phrase
typically describes a call for service generated through the 911 emergency call system.
The doctor further explained that “in the very beginning of EMS . . .—there weren’t clear
definitions” describing different types of ambulances. However, “[i]n the ‘90s,” the
federal Medicare guidelines began differentiating between four different classifications of
ambulance. Despite this, each type of ambulance can provide both “emergency” and
“nonemergency” services.
The doctor recalled that in 2009, the City denied a request by one of Symons’s
predecessor companies to operate ambulances for the purpose of providing
nonemergency transport within the City’s geographic limits. This predecessor company
later merged with Symons, but Symons did not separately reapply for a franchise or
permit from the City based upon legal advice from various third party sources.
C. Statement of Decision and Judgment
On August 18, 2021, the trial court issued a statement of decision concluding that
Symons “did not meet its burden to prove its allegations” that RMC section 5.66.020 was
invalid. Judgment was entered in favor of the City, and Symons appeals from this
judgment.
7
III. DISCUSSION
A. Admission of Evidence
The first argument advanced by Symons on appeal is that the trial court erred by
permitting the deputy fire chief and battalion chief to testify that the scope of the
franchise granted in Ordinance 4183 and Ordinance 4768 included both emergency and
nonemergency ambulance transports. According to Symons, this testimony was
inadmissible because both witnesses lacked sufficient personal knowledge to testify on
this topic as required by Evidence Code section 702.5 We disagree.
Generally, “the testimony of a witness concerning a particular matter is
inadmissible unless he has personal knowledge of the matter.” (Evid. Code, § 702.)
“ ‘Broadly speaking, an appellate court reviews any ruling by a trial court as to the
admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion.’ ” (Meeks v. AutoZone, Inc. (2018)
24 Cal.App.5th 855, 861.) However, “[t]he abuse of discretion standard is not a unified
standard; the deference it calls for varies according to the aspect of a trial court’s ruling
under review.” (Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711.) Thus, the
5 Generally, when interpreting a statute or ordinance, “we turn first, to the words of the statute, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning. [Citations.] When the language of a statute is clear, we need go no further. However, when the language is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, we look to a variety of extrinsic aids . . . .” (Chaffee v. San Francisco Public Library Com. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 109, 114.) One such extrinsic aid is the municipality’s interpretation of its own ordinance, which “ ‘ “is entitled to great weight unless it is clearly erroneous or unauthorized.” ’ ” (Berkeley Hills Watershed Coalition v. City of Berkeley (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 880, 896 (Berkeley Hills).) Notably, Symons does not contend that this type of extrinsic evidence was irrelevant in this case but only that the specific witnesses offered by the City lacked the personal knowledge to offer such testimony.
8
trial court’s factual determination that a witness possesses sufficient personal knowledge
to testify on a matter is reviewed for substantial evidence. (People v. Lopez (2018)
agency’s vacillating practice—i.e. adopting a new interpretation that contradicts a prior
interpretation—is entitled to little or no weight.’ ”]; United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v.
California Regional Water Quality Control Bd. (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 851, 887 [court
will give “little weight” to agency interpretation of statute in light of inconsistencies in
agency’s application of statute].) It does not render the testimony inadmissible under
Evidence Code section 702.6
In this case, the deputy fire chief testified that he had been working for the City
since 1993, and the battalion chief testified that he was employed by Goodhew from 1990
through 2000. The record shows that the substantive terms of Ordinance 4768 granting a
franchise to Goodhew remained in effect through at least sometime in 1999, since
6 At the time of oral argument, Symons argued that Castenada was wrongly decided and that our decision in that case has since been overruled by Yamaha. Upon review of our Supreme Court’s decision in Yamaha, we disagree with Symons’s characterization. The question presented in Yamaha was the degree of weight or deference to be given agency interpretation of a statute or regulation. (Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 6.) Contrary to Symons’s suggestion, there was no discussion regarding the admissibility of evidence or the manner in which a party may seek to lay the foundation for admitting an agency interpretation of a statute or regulation. Instead, Yamaha merely recognized that courts must “independently judge the text of the statute, taking into account and respecting the agency’s interpretation of its meaning” and that “an agency’s interpretation is one among several tools available to the court” (Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 7), which is consistent with the other authorities set forth in this opinion.
11
Goodhew’s franchise was extended without substantive change to the scope of its
franchise during this time period. Thus, both witnesses worked for either the City or the
franchise holder for significant periods of time in which the franchise terms set forth in
Ordinance 4768 remained in effect. This was substantial evidence upon which the trial
court could rely to conclude that both witnesses had sufficient personal knowledge to
testify regarding the scope of the franchise, and we find no abuse of discretion in the
admission of this testimony.
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The second argument advanced by Symons on appeal is that there was insufficient
evidence to support the trial court’s determination that the City’s attempts to regulate
ambulance services was not preempted by the EMS Act. We conclude that Symons has
forfeited this issue for failure to fairly summarize the evidence in the record and failure to
tailor its arguments to the correct standard of review. Further, even in the absence of
forfeiture, we would conclude that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings.
1. Legal Principles and Standard of Review
“In reviewing a judgment based upon a statement of decision following a bench
trial,” we “apply a substantial evidence standard of review to the trial court’s findings of
rendered by emergency ambulances, even if the ambulance is engaged in nonemergency
interfacility transfers.”].) Given these authorities, we cannot say that the City’s
interpretation of its own ordinance in this case is unreasonable. Clearly, at least one
reasonable interpretation of the phrase “emergency ambulance vehicles” is that it refers to
the type of vehicle covered by the franchise and not the type of services provided by
those vehicles.
Thus, even if we accepted Symons’s characterization of the record that Ordinance
4183 and Ordinance 4768 constituted the only evidence presented on this issue, it would
have been appropriate for the trial court to defer to the City’s reasonable interpretation of
its own ordinances. The fact that Symons may have proffered an equally reasonable
interpretation of the ordinances does not compel a finding in its favor as a matter of law,
and reversal is not warranted under the substantial evidence standard of review.
19
5. The Evidence Did Not Establish the Loss of the City’s Rights Under Section
1797.201
Symons also argues that, even assuming the City maintained a right to regulate
nonemergency ambulance services under section 1797.201, the City lost its right to do so
when its contract with the private ambulance carrier purportedly lapsed for a period of
time in 1985. We disagree.
First, we do not believe that the evidence in the record supports the factual
predicate for Symons’s argument. Facially, the city ordinances produced at trial granted
franchise extensions for the operation of ambulances from March 1980 through the time
of trial. Symons points to the fact that one of the ordinances granting one such extension
was not formally adopted by the City until nine months after the effective date of the
extension, and argues that this constitutes evidence the City discontinued the provision of
services during this time.
However, it is “a well-established principle of contract law” that “when parties
agree on the material terms of a contract with the intention to later reduce it to a formal
writing, failure to complete the formal writing does not negate the existence of the initial
contract.” (CSAA Ins. Exchange v. Hodroj (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 272, 276; Church v.
Wade (1947) 80 Cal.App.2d 412, 419 [contract exists where performed by both parties,
even if not reduced to writing].) Thus, the absence of a formalized writing does not, in
itself, evidence the absence of an agreement, let alone the cessation of services provided
under that agreement. This is particularly true where, as here, the later formalization of
the agreement expressly provides the date upon which the parties understood the
20
agreement to be deemed effective. Thus, in our view, the evidence does not support the
fact upon which Symons’s argument is premised.
Second, even if the evidence could be construed as a temporary lapse in contracted
services, we disagree with Symons that this evidence would be sufficient to show the loss
of the City’s rights under section 1797.201. Under the express terms of section 1797.201,
a city that contracted or provided for prehospital emergency services as of June 1, 1980,
retains the obligation to provide, and right to regulate, those services “until such time that
an agreement is reached” with a county. (§ 1797.201.) Thus, under a plain reading of the
statute, a city cannot be considered to have relinquished its responsibilities or rights under
section 1797.201 until such time as the county or local EMS agency agrees to assume
responsibility for providing the services previously provided by the city.
The California Supreme Court’s holding in Valley Medical supports this
conclusion. In Valley Medical, a local fire district initially retained the right to continue
provision of ambulance services under section 1797.201 but sold the equipment
necessary to continue independently providing such services in 1984, and thereafter
participated in the local EMS agency’s plan for emergency ambulance transport from
1986 through 1993. (Valley Medical, supra, 17 Cal.4th at pp. 751-752.) Under these
circumstances, the California Supreme Court concluded that the local fire district could
not enact a new ordinance reasserting its authority to regulate emergency ambulance
services. (Id. at pp. 750-751.) The local district’s loss of its section 1797.201 rights
rested on the fact that it “ceas[ed] to provide such services sometime after the passage of
the EMS Act, and permit[ed] those services to be provided or administered by the local
21
EMS agency.” (Id. at p. 758, italics added.)7 The high court reiterated the importance of
both factual predicates in the summation of its holding. (Id. at p. 761.)
The cannons of statutory construction also support our interpretation of section
1797.201. When interpreting a statute, “[w]e construe the statute’s words in context,
harmonizing statutory provisions to avoid absurd results.” (California Building Industry
Assn. v. State Water Resources Control B. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1032, 1041.) As relevant
here, section 1797.201 mandates that the city or local fire district continue providing
prehospital emergency medical services “[u]ntil such time that an agreement is reached.”
(§ 1797.201; Valley Medical, supra, 17 Cal.4th at pp. 758-759 [section 1797.201 imposes
upon a city or local fire district the “obligation to continue to provide emergency medical
services until an agreement is reached with a county”].) Obviously, a city cannot meet
this statutory mandate if it can lose the right to exercise administrative control of
prehospital emergency services absent an agreement with a county or local EMS agency.
Symons’s interpretation would create the possibility that a city could lose the right to
provide emergency services before any other public entity has agreed to assume
responsibility for provision of those services. Such an interpretation does not advance the
purpose of the statutory scheme to “ensure a continuity of emergency medical services
for residents of section 1797.201 cities and fire districts until agreements have been
7 We observe that this interpretation is also in line with the Supreme Court’s discussion in County of San Bernardino, in which it explained that “the Legislature likely contemplated that section 1797.201 cities and fire districts would eventually be integrated into local EMS agencies. But the statue makes clear that these cities and fire districts must be integrated through voluntary agreement . . . .” (County of San Bernardino, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 924-925, italics added.)
22
reached integrating these jurisdictions into the local EMS agency” (Valley Medical, at
p. 758), and we decline to endorse a reading of the statute that could produce such an
absurd result.
Thus, in our view, merely showing that the City was unable to provide a specified
service for some temporary period of time is not sufficient to establish a loss of section
1797.201 rights. There must also be a showing that the City relinquished its right to the
county or local EMS agency and permitted the local EMS agency to provide the services
discontinued by the City in order to show that the City lost its rights under section
1797.201. Because no such evidence was presented in this case, we find no error in the
trial court’s finding on this issue. The evidence cited by Symons on appeal does not
compel a finding that the City discontinued any prehospital emergency services at any
relevant time. Even if it did, such evidence alone would not be sufficient to support a
finding in favor of Symons on the issue.
C. Federal Anti-Trust Law
Finally, we briefly address Symons argument that the City’s franchise ordinances
are invalid because they violate federal antitrust law (the Sherman Act; 15 U.S.C. § 1).
Symons’s entire argument on this point is premised on the factual assertion that the City
acted outside the scope of its authority under the EMS Act. Symons concedes that any
purported exclusive operating area does not violate the Sherman Act if “the EMS Act is
properly followed according to the grants of power it contains.” Symons further
concedes that in its prior appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction in this case,
this court concluded that a city may create an exclusive operating area for provision of
23
prehospital emergency medical services under the EMS Act if the city retained
administrative control over those services pursuant to section 1797.201.8 (City of
Riverside, supra, E064693.)
In light of the trial court’s finding that Symons failed to meet its burden to show
that the City acted outside the scope of its authority under the EMS Act when enacting
RMC chapter 5.66, and our conclusion that substantial evidence in the record supports
this finding, the factual premise for Symons’s antitrust argument is not present in this
case. As a result, we find no basis to reverse the judgment on this ground.
IV. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent to recover its costs on appeal.
FIELDS J.
We concur:
MILLER Acting P. J.
CODRINGTON J.
8 Symons continues to express its disagreement with our conclusion in City of Riverside, supra, E064693. However, “[u]nder the law-of-the-case doctrine, the determination by an appellate court of an issue of law is conclusive in subsequent proceedings in the same case.” (People v. Yokely (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1273.) The doctrine applies “when, upon a subsequent trial, the issues and facts found remain substantially the same . . . .” (Building Industry Assn. v. City of Oceanside (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 744, 761.) And the doctrine equally applies when the Court of Appeal reaches the merits of any legal questions on appeal from a preliminary injunction. (Crespin v. Coye (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 700, 708.)
24
Filed 2/7/24
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
SYMONS EMERGENCY SPECIALTIES, E078113 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super.Ct.No. CIVDS1516027) v. ORDER CERTIFYING OPINION CITY OF RIVERSIDE, FOR PUBLICATION
Defendant and Respondent.
THE COURT
The four requests for publication of the nonpublished opinion filed in the above matter January 24, 26, and 29, 2024, are GRANTED. The opinion meets the standards for publication as specified in California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c)(2), (4), and (6).
IT IS SO ORDERED that said opinion filed January 9, 2024, be certified for publication pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(b).
FIELDS J.
We concur:
MILLER Acting P. J.
CODRINGTON J.
1
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the City of Riverside was entitled to regulate nonemergency ambulance services under the grandfathering provisions of the EMS Act because the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof to show the City did not regulate such services as of June 1, 1980.
Issues
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony from city employees regarding the interpretation of city ordinances.
Whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that the City regulated nonemergency ambulance services as of June 1, 1980.
Whether RMC section 5.66.020 is invalid as a matter of law due to federal anti-trust law.
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The failure to tailor arguments to the appropriate standard of review and failure to fairly summarize the evidence at trial forfeits Symons’s claim that the trial court’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence.”