71 Cal.App.5th 760
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- In March–April 2020, Governor Newsom authorized an emergency Budget Act appropriation and announced the Disaster Relief Assistance for Immigrants Project: a one-time program allocating $75 million for $500 cash payments to undocumented adults (capped $1,000 per household) administered by the Department of Social Services.
- Plaintiffs (taxpayers) sued under Code of Civil Procedure § 526a, alleging the Project unlawfully expended public funds because federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1621) permits state benefits to undocumented immigrants only if authorized by state statute.
- Plaintiffs sought an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction to halt disbursement; the trial court denied the TRO. Plaintiffs also sought writ relief and a supersedeas in the appellate court; those emergency petitions were denied.
- While the appeal from the TRO denial was pending, defendants represented (and plaintiffs did not contest) that the $75 million in benefits were fully disbursed by August 17, 2020.
- The Court of Appeal invited supplemental briefing on mootness and dismissed the appeal as moot, reasoning the Project was a one‑time emergency expenditure already spent and could not be undone; the court declined to revisit or displace White v. Davis concerning taxpayer irreparable-harm standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal from the denial of a TRO seeking to enjoin Project disbursements is justiciable or moot after funds were spent | The appeal remains live because equity can restore status quo ante and the legal question (taxpayer entitlement to injunctive relief) is of public importance and likely to recur | The payments were one‑time and fully distributed while the appeal was pending, so the requested injunctive relief is impossible and the appeal is moot | Dismissed as moot: one‑time payments already spent cannot be unwound; TRO issue is moot |
| Whether taxpayer injury alone can justify preliminary injunctive relief to prevent alleged illegal expenditures of public funds | Taxpayer harm is more than monetary and can warrant preliminary injunction; asked court to depart from White v. Davis | Existing precedent (White v. Davis) holds taxpayer interest ordinarily insufficient for preliminary injunction; plaintiffs failed to show extraordinary circumstances | Court refused to revisit White; declined to reach the merits because the case is moot and the issue does not evade review |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Davis, 30 Cal.4th 528 (explaining taxpayer standing does not ordinarily justify preliminary injunctive relief)
- City of Cerritos v. State of California, 239 Cal.App.4th 1020 (discussing exceptions to mootness where a remedy could reinstate status quo during a continuing winding‑down process)
- Finnie v. Town of Tiburon, 199 Cal.App.3d 1 (general principle that appellate courts decide only actual controversies)
- Disenhouse v. Peevey, 226 Cal.App.4th 1096 (appeal of injunction denial is moot when the conduct sought to be enjoined already occurred)
- County of Los Angeles v. Butcher, 155 Cal.App.2d 744 (challenge to injunction denying sale is moot when property has been sold)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (jurisdictional limits on departing from Supreme Court precedent)
- Loder v. City of Glendale, 216 Cal.App.3d 777 (example of non‑moot taxpayer challenge reaching merits)
- Leach v. City of San Marcos, 213 Cal.App.3d 648 (example of non‑moot taxpayer challenge reaching merits)
- Cohen v. Bd. of Supervisors, 178 Cal.App.3d 447 (example of non‑moot taxpayer challenge reaching merits)