Ramirez v. Tulare County District Attorney's Office
9 Cal. App. 5th 911
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Three consolidated actions (Ramirez, Champaheuang, Sanchez) sought return of personal property seized by local police as alleged drug-related contraband after prosecutors declared administrative (nonjudicial) forfeitures.
- Plaintiffs alleged the nonjudicial forfeitures were invalid ab initio because police officers (not the district attorney or Attorney General) purported to initiate the administrative forfeiture notices, in violation of Health & Safety Code § 11488.4(j).
- Each plaintiff did not file a claim opposing forfeiture within 30 days; district attorneys later issued written declarations of administrative forfeiture.
- Defendants demurred on three procedural grounds: failure to exhaust administrative remedies (file a § 11488.5 claim), failure to present a Government Claims Act claim, and statute-of-limitations (Code Civ. Proc. § 340 one-year) bar.
- The trial court sustained demurrers solely on statute-of-limitations grounds (one-year § 340), dismissed the petitions without leave to amend, and plaintiffs appealed.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it held exhaustion not required where the nonjudicial proceedings were invalidly initiated by police; Government Claims Act did not apply to actions for return of specific property; the correct limitations period is three years (Code Civ. Proc. § 338(c)(1)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies under forfeiture statutes | No exhaustion required because nonjudicial forfeiture was invalid from the start where police—not prosecutors—initiated proceedings (per Cuevas) | Plaintiffs should have filed statutory claims to oppose forfeiture before seeking judicial relief | Held for plaintiffs: where nonjudicial proceedings are invalid ab initio, there is no administrative remedy to exhaust; demurrer on this ground properly overruled |
| Government Claims Act requirement | No claim required because plaintiffs seek return of specific property, not money or damages (Minsky) | Plaintiffs failed to present a government claim; suit barred | Held for plaintiffs: Minsky controls; action for recovery of specific property is not a claim for money or damages, so presentation requirement does not apply |
| Applicable statute of limitations | Three-year period for actions to recover chattels (Code Civ. Proc. § 338(c)(1)); SOL runs when repudiation (declaration of forfeiture) occurs | One-year statute for actions "upon a statute for a forfeiture" (Code Civ. Proc. § 340) applies, starting at seizure | Held for plaintiffs: § 340 inapplicable; § 338(c)(1) three-year period applies and begins when title repudiation is unequivocally communicated (e.g., declaration of forfeiture); claims timely |
| Remedy when property dissipated after wrongful forfeiture | Plaintiffs may seek specific return or equitable compensation in lieu if property irretrievable (Minsky/Holt) | Defendants relied on administrative process and distributions to argue finality | Held for plaintiffs: court retains power to order return or equitable compensation when administrative forfeiture was invalid and property cannot be returned |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuevas v. Superior Court, 221 Cal.App.4th 1312 (Cal. Ct. App.) (nonjudicial forfeiture initiated by police is invalid ab initio; no administrative remedy to exhaust)
- Minsky v. City of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 113 (Cal. 1974) (action for recovery of specific property is not a claim for money or damages under Government Claims Act)
- Nasir v. Sacramento County Off. of the Dist. Atty., 11 Cal.App.4th 976 (Cal. Ct. App.) (purpose and limits of nonjudicial forfeiture; nonjudicial process terminates if a claim is filed)
- United States v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.2d 189 (Cal. 1941) (exhaustion requirement generally applies to administrative schemes—but distinguishable where the purported administrative actor lacks statutory authority)
- Coy v. County of Los Angeles, 235 Cal.App.3d 1077 (Cal. Ct. App.) (three-year statute for recovery of personal property; SOL runs on repudiation/demand-and-refusal rule for lawful takings)
- Grant, 52 Cal.App.2d 794 (Cal. Ct. App.) (government loses right to retain property if it fails to timely pursue forfeiture; owner entitled to return)