230 Cal. App. 4th 666
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Verizon, a telephone company, pays state-wide unitary property taxes under Cal. Const. art. XIII, §19; Board assesses property centrally and allocates values to counties via a roll.
- Verizon filed for a unitary reassessment for 2007 and sought a refund; petition named 38 counties where property lies.
- Verizon paid taxes to 38 counties; refund action filed only against 9 counties named as defendants; 29 counties were omitted.
- Section 5148 requires a single complaint with all parties joined for disputes about year-long assessments against the Board and counties; action follows payment of taxes.
- Trial court sustained a demurrer for failure to join all 38 counties, holding absent counties indispensable due to potential future impact and lack of joinder procedures.
- Court reverses, holding Section 5148 does not require naming all counties unless a refund is sought from those counties; the absent counties are not indispensable parties and the case should proceed with the named defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §5148 requires naming every county Verizon owns property in. | Verizon argues only counties from which a refund is sought must be named. | Board argues all counties must be named because disputes involve unitary assessment. | Section 5148 does not require naming all counties; only those from which refund is sought. |
| Whether absent counties are indispensable parties under CCP §389. | Absent counties are not indispensable; their absence does not impair relief or rights. | Absent counties may be affected by future assessments and must be joined. | Absent counties are not indispensable; trial court abused its discretion in demurring. |
Key Cases Cited
- ITT World Communications, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 37 Cal.3d 859 (Cal. 1985) (unitary value and statewide valuation principle)
- Daar v. Yellow Cab Co., 67 Cal.2d 695 (Cal. 1967) (well-settled complaint standards on demurrer)
- Deltakeeper v. Oakdale Irrigation Dist., 94 Cal.App.4th 1092 (Cal. App. 2001) (joinder and indispensable party standards)
- People ex rel. Lungren v. Community Redevelopment Agency, 56 Cal.App.4th 868 (Cal. App. 1997) (adequate representation of absent parties when interests align)
- Coalition of Concerned Communities, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 34 Cal.4th 733 (Cal. 2004) (statutory interpretation aids, legislative history considered)
- Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, 210 Cal.App.4th 1484 (Cal. App. 2012) (judicial notice and evidentiary limits in demurrer context)