Tafti v. County of Tulare
198 Cal. App. 4th 891
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Tafti, owner of Kaweah General Store, faced a Tulare County enforcement order imposing $138,824 in civil penalties for underground storage tank violations.
- Respondent issued the Enforcement Order after finding multiple violations of Cal. Regs. title 23, div. 3, ch. 16, with various violation periods totaling hundreds of days.
- Tafti requested an appeal hearing, which ultimately addressed both the merits of violations and, at issue, the amount of civil penalties.
- The administrative hearing before ALJ Walker concluded with a total penalty of $1,148,200, far above the enforcement order amount.
- Superior Court affirmed findings and penalties, rejecting due process and excessiveness challenges; Tafti appealed, asserting notice, due process, and statutory authority defects.
- The court held that fair notice was violated because the hearing could be de novo on penalties, not limited to challenge of the enforcement order’s merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice adequately informed the scope of the penalty hearing | Tafti contends notice misled; hearing could exceed the Enforcement Order. | Tafti was informed of hearing rights and APA procedures; scope was properly described. | Yes; notice inadequately informed scope, invalidating excess penalties beyond $138,824. |
| Whether the Enforcement Order properly described the statutory basis for penalties | Tafti argues failure to clearly reference §25299 as the basis for penalties. | Order referenced §25404.1.1 and effectively §25299; adequate to identify basis. | Partially; basis was adequately identified, but explicit articulation would have been better. |
| Whether the ALJ and respondent had authority to impose penalties beyond the Enforcement Order | De novo penalty determination exceeded the scope of the original order. | Hearing procedures allowed reconsideration of penalties under applicable statutes. | Yes; the scope included potentially greater penalties, but due process requires clear notice. |
| Whether due process/privacy and excessive penalties violated Tafti's rights | Excessive fines and lack of notice violated due process and constitutional protections. | Penalties were based on statutory factors and substantial evidence; not unconstitutional. | The due process violation was central; penalties exceeding the original amount were vacated. |
| Whether the ALJ abused discretion in considering ability to pay | Tafti contends financial ability to pay should have limited penalties. | Ability to pay may be considered, but not dispositive if due process concerns exist. | Not necessary to decide, given notice defect; excess penalties severable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Comm., 43 Cal.3d 1379 (Cal. 1987) (severability of improper punitive damages from proper award)
- Smith v. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 37 Cal.App.4th 229 (Cal. App. 1995) (due process and notice in regulatory proceedings)
- Williamson v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance, 217 Cal.App.3d 1343 (Cal. App. 1990) (agency may affirm, modify, or dismiss penalties; deference to agency)
- Cadilla v. Board of Medical Examiners, 26 Cal.App.3d 961 (Cal. App. 1972) (scope of penalties and hearing procedures for professional boards)