20 Cal.App.5th 1247
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (California DUI Lawyers Association and attorney Stephen Mandell) sued the DMV and its director, alleging the APS (administrative per se) driver’s‑license hearing system combines advocacy and adjudication in a single hearing officer, with ex parte managerial review, violating drivers’ procedural due process rights and thus constituting illegal expenditure/waste.
- APS suspends licenses administratively after DUI arrests; drivers may request an APS hearing to contest probable cause, arrest, or BAC .08+; DMV hearing officers decide by preponderance and DMV bears the burden of proof.
- Plaintiffs alleged hearing officers act as investigator/advocate and trier of fact, are subordinate to management that can review/change set‑aside decisions ex parte, and that Vehicle Code §14112(b) exempts APS hearings from APA separation‑of‑functions protections.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted DMV’s motion and denied plaintiffs’ motion solely on the ground that plaintiffs lacked standing (taxpayer standing under Code Civ. Proc. §526a and common‑law taxpayer standing). The court did not reach the merits.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding CDLA had taxpayer standing under §526a (and common‑law taxpayer standing) to challenge the APS system as wasteful/illegal if it violates due process, and remanded for further proceedings; the appellate court declined to decide the merits of the constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have taxpayer standing under Code Civ. Proc. §526a to challenge APS as illegal expenditure/waste | APS combines advocate/factfinder and permits ex parte managerial influence, rendering the system unconstitutional and therefore an illegal waste of public funds; taxpayers may sue to stop illegal expenditures | APS structure complies with Vehicle Code and case law; plaintiffs merely dispute DMV’s manner of implementation and thus lack §526a standing | Plaintiffs have §526a taxpayer standing because an alleged due process violation (an illegal system) can constitute waste; DMV cannot short‑circuit standing by asserting legality on the merits |
| Whether existence of other remedies (individual judicial review by affected drivers) defeats taxpayer standing | §526a is intended to allow citizen suits even when affected individuals exist; existence of judicial review does not preclude taxpayer action to enjoin illegal government action | The legislature provided other avenues (judicial review by aggrieved drivers), so taxpayer suit is unnecessary and should be barred | Existence of alternative plaintiffs or remedies does not bar §526a suits; the statute’s remedial purpose supports taxpayer standing |
| Whether plaintiffs have common‑law taxpayer standing (ultra vires) | If APS is unconstitutional/ultra vires, taxpayers may sue under common law to enjoin such action | DMV contends it acted within statutory authority, so no ultra vires act exists | Plaintiffs adequately alleged ultra vires conduct by challenging constitutionality; common‑law taxpayer standing exists at this threshold stage |
| Scope of appellate review — whether court should decide merits on appeal if standing is found | Plaintiffs asked the appellate court to reach and decide the summary judgment motions on the merits if standing is found | DMV urged remand for trial court to resolve merits and evidentiary objections | Court found standing but declined to decide merits or evidentiary objections for the first time on appeal; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- MacDonald v. Gutierrez, 32 Cal.4th 150 (recognizing APS procedure and immediate administrative suspension)
- Brown v. Valverde, 183 Cal.App.4th 1531 (describing APS hearing rights and procedures)
- Petrus v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 194 Cal.App.4th 1240 (holding DMV bears burden at APS hearings)
- Blair v. Pitchess, 5 Cal.3d 258 (taxpayer standing under §526a appropriate to challenge constitutionality of governmental statutes/procedures)
- County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 171 Cal.App.4th 119 (citizen suits under §526a may enforce statutory rights and challenge illegal agency practices)
- Nightlife Partners v. City of Beverly Hills, 108 Cal.App.4th 81 (due process requires a fair tribunal; combining advocacy and neutral decisionmaking can violate due process)
- Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd., 40 Cal.4th 1 (internal separation between advocates and decisionmakers preserves neutrality)
- Sundance v. Municipal Court, 42 Cal.3d 1101 (§526a’s ‘‘waste’’ excludes mere discretionary judgment calls; waste means more than policy disagreement)