Templo v. State, 24 Cal. App. 5th 730

Background

Plaintiffs Geraldine and Mark Templo sued a tort defendant and separately sought declaratory relief against the State challenging Code Civ. Proc. § 631(b), which requires a $150 nonrefundable jury fee, as an unconstitutional tax under Article XIII A § 3 (Proposition 26).
The Templos alleged the fee is not a tax enacted by a two‑thirds legislative vote, does not benefit plaintiffs, and does not reflect actual jury costs; they sought a refund and attorney fees.
The State moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the Judicial Council (not the State generally) administers and manages the fee and is the proper defendant; the State also raised the Government Claims Act as a separate defense.
The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for the State, finding the State was not the proper defendant and denying leave to amend as to the State.
On appeal, the Templos argued the State is the proper defendant because Article XIII A § 3 places the burden on "the State" to prove an exaction is not a tax; they also suggested potential equal protection and due process theories.
The Court of Appeal affirmed: the Judicial Council (or the agency administering the fee) has the direct institutional interest to defend the statute, and naming the State generally was insufficient; leave to amend was properly denied as futile.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper defendant for constitutional challenge to a state fee	The State is the proper defendant because Article XIII A § 3 places the burden on "the State" to prove a charge is not a tax	The Judicial Council, which administers and controls the jury fee, is the proper defendant with the direct institutional interest	The State is not the proper defendant; the agency administering the fee (Judicial Council) is the correct defendant
Sufficiency of pleadings against the State	Complaint alleges statute violates Prop 26 and seeks refund; naming State is adequate	Complaint fails to state facts showing the State, rather than the Judicial Council, has a direct interest; dismissal appropriate	Judgment on the pleadings for the State affirmed; complaint did not state a cause of action against the State
Leave to amend	Plaintiffs asserted they could amend to omit refund request or assert equal protection/due process claims	Defendant argued amendment would be futile; plaintiffs made no concrete amendment showing	Leave to amend as to the State properly denied as futile
Burden of proof under Proposition 26	Because Article XIII A § 3 places burden on "State," the State must be defendant to meet that burden	The constitutional language shifts burden to the government generally but does not designate which public entity must defend; the administering agency has the evidence and interest	Article XIII A § 3 does not require naming the State as defendant; burden falls on the government entity defending the charge (here, Judicial Council)

Key Cases Cited

Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal.3d 728 (state officers with direct administrative functions are proper defendants in statutory‑constitutionality suits)
State of California v. Superior Court (Veta), 12 Cal.3d 237 (proper defendant is agency with direct interest, not the State generally)
Schmeer v. County of Los Angeles, 213 Cal.App.4th 1310 (Proposition 26 shifted burden to government to prove an exaction is not a tax)
Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 15 Cal.4th 866 (pre‑Proposition 26 allocation of burdens in fee challenges)
California Farm Bureau Federation v. State Water Resources Control Board, 51 Cal.4th 421 (fee challenged as tax defended by administering agency)
Southern California Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Comm., 227 Cal.App.4th 172 (agency charged with fee administration is proper defendant)
California Chamber of Commerce v. State Air Resources Bd., 10 Cal.App.5th 604 (post‑Proposition 26 challenges brought against the specific administrative agency)