San Diegans for Open Govt. v. Fonseca
D077652M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 8, 2021Background
- SDOG sued Julio Fonseca, former superintendent of the San Ysidro School District, alleging he caused an unlawful $113,433 disbursement in a settlement and seeking declaratory/injunctive relief and disgorgement.
- SDOG invoked Code of Civil Procedure § 526a taxpayer standing (including asserted associational standing for members) and relied on A.J. Fistes to argue state tax or sales-tax-funded payments can suffice.
- The trial court bifurcated proceedings to decide standing; an evidentiary hearing focused on whether SDOG or any member (a “resident”) paid a tax that funded the District within one year before suit.
- SDOG’s PMK (CEO Pedro Quiroz) and a board member testified about a 2016 “boot camp” purchase subject to sales tax and about member applications, but testimony was vague, unimpeached documents/receipts were absent, and some member applications were redacted or dated after suit.
- The trial court found Quiroz not credible, concluded SDOG failed to prove the § 526a taxpayer/resident/tax-payment requirement, and dismissed with prejudice; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDOG or its members satisfied § 526a’s taxpayer/resident requirement (paid a tax that funds the defendant local agency within one year) | SDOG: associational standing; some members (or SDOG via sales-taxed purchases) paid taxes that fund the District; state tax payments can suffice (A.J. Fistes). | Fonseca: no evidence any SDOG member is a resident who paid taxes funding the District within one year; PMK lacked knowledge; payments alleged are unproven or to the state only. | Held: SDOG failed to prove it or any member paid a tax funding the District within one year; evidence insufficient and PMK testimony not credible. |
| Whether § 526a authorizes a suit seeking recovery/disgorgement from a completed settlement or against an individual officer (not suing the agency) | SDOG: § 526a reach extends to disgorgement on an illegal contract and may be brought against an officer/agent. | Fonseca: § 526a is limited to actions to "restrain and prevent" illegal expenditures; completed, discretionary settlements are outside § 526a and the local agency is the proper defendant. | Held: Court concluded § 526a does not provide a basis to challenge a completed discretionary settlement as a "restrain and prevent" action—particularly when suing a non‑agency party—though the decision was resolved on lack of taxpayer proof. |
| Whether SDOG may invoke associational standing under § 526a | SDOG: may sue on behalf of members if a member would have standing in own right. | Fonseca: even if associational standing exists, SDOG failed to show any qualifying member. | Held: Court assumed (without deciding) associational standing could be asserted but found SDOG failed to prove any member met § 526a requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weatherford v. City of San Rafael, 2 Cal.5th 1241 (Cal. 2017) (standing is a threshold inquiry; party must show specific interest to litigate)
- Blair v. Pitchess, 5 Cal.3d 258 (Cal. 1971) (§ 526a construed broadly to allow taxpayer suits to challenge government action)
- A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc., 38 Cal.App.5th 677 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (state tax payments can suffice to establish standing where state is principal funding source)
- Connerly v. State Personnel Bd., 92 Cal.App.4th 16 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (§ 526a permits taxpayer suits to restrain or prevent illegal expenditures without special damage showing)
- San Bernardino County v. Superior Court, 239 Cal.App.4th 679 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (completed discretionary settlements are not typical § 526a "restrain and prevent" actions)
- California DUI Lawyers Assn. v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 20 Cal.App.5th 1247 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (statutory standing and interpretation reviewed de novo)
- In re I.W., 180 Cal.App.4th 1517 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (when appellant had burden, appellate review asks whether evidence was uncontradicted and of such weight that no judicial determination could find it insufficient)