85 Cal.App.5th 85
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Plaintiffs (condominium owners) challenged a sewer service charge imposed by Napa Sanitation District, alleging it contains a use fee and a capacity fee and that the use fee is an unlawful tax (exceeds reasonable cost, not voter‑approved).
- Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint (TAC) expressly limited the challenge to the use‑fee component and sought declaratory and injunctive relief (no attack on capacity fee).
- The District argued the authorizing ordinances are inseverable, so invalidating the use fee would necessarily invalidate the capacity fee, bringing the claim within Gov. Code § 66022’s 120‑day limitations for capacity charges.
- The trial court sustained the District’s demurrer without leave to amend, concluding inseverability made the action time‑barred; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Court of Appeal held the gravamen of the TAC is a challenge to the use fee and that severability is a remedial question affecting scope of relief, not the nature of the claim or applicable statute of limitations; it reversed and remanded, ordering the demurrer overruled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether severability/inseverability of the ordinances controls the statute of limitations | The TAC attacks only the use fee; the claim is governed by the 3‑year statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 338) and continuous accrual (Howard Jarvis) because each collection restarts the limitations period | Because the ordinances are inseverable, any attack on the use fee necessarily attacks the capacity fee, so Gov. Code § 66022's 120‑day limit applies | Court: Gravamen controls limitations; severability is a remedy question and cannot convert the nature of the claim—plaintiffs’ use‑fee challenge is not time‑barred on the basis of inseverability; reverse and remand |
| Whether the TAC pleads a challenge to the capacity fee | TAC expressly disclaims any attack on capacity fee; pleads only illegality of use fee | District says relief would invalidate entire charge so pleadings effectively attack capacity fee | Court: TAC does not allege injury or wrongdoing as to capacity fee; nature of complaint governs, not potential scope of remedy |
| Proper stage to resolve severability | Plaintiffs: severability is for remedy after invalidity is established; premature to resolve here | District: severability can be decided to determine whether claim is time‑barred and to inform standing/remedy issues | Court: Severability is premature on demurrer here; it does not determine the gravamen or limitations question |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of La Habra, 25 Cal.4th 809 (2001) (continuous‑accrual rule: validity of a tax measure may be attacked within the statutory period after any collection)
- Hensler v. City of Glendale, 8 Cal.4th 1 (1994) (gravamen—nature of the right sued upon—controls which limitations period applies)
- County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern, 127 Cal.App.4th 1544 (2005) (when a fee serves lawful and unlawful purposes, remedy may be limited to invalid portion; severability/remedy analysis)
- INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (severability may be examined early when necessary to determine standing or whether a remedy would redress the injury)