24 Cal.App.5th 1178
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Kele Young operated Magic Jungle, a restricted-species wildlife facility; she filed a permit renewal in Aug 2013 and claimed exemption/waiver of fees but did not pay a required inspection fee (~$227.91).
- The Department waived the permit and application fees but refused to waive the inspection fee, citing CCR provisions that distinguish inspection fees from permit fees.
- Young appealed administratively to OAH and then to the Fish and Game Commission; the OAH proposed, and the Commission adopted, a decision upholding the Department’s refusal to waive inspection fees.
- Young filed a petition for writ of mandate in superior court arguing the Department had a mandatory duty under Fish & Game Code §2150(c) and CCR §671.1(b)(10) to consider waiving inspection fees (or that the Department’s blanket refusal was an unlawful underground regulation); the superior court denied relief.
- On appeal Young raised many claims; the appellate court deemed most waived for inadequate briefing and limited review to whether the Department could refuse to waive inspection fees without considering “justified reasons” or the public/animal interest, and whether the trial court’s lack of a statement of decision required reversal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding Fish & Game Code §2150(c) and CCR §671.1(b)(10) do not authorize waiving inspection fees and no statement of decision was required because the trial court decided issues of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fish & Game Code §2150(c) or CCR §671.1(b)(10) require the Department to consider waiving inspection fees | Young: §2150(c) allows non‑AZA organizations to apply for waiver of specified permit requirements (including inspection fees); CCR §671.1(b)(10) requires consideration of "best interests"—inspection fees should be waivable | Wildlife Agencies: Statutes and regulations distinguish permit fees from inspection fees; no statutory/regulatory authority exists to waive inspection fees; CCR provisions require inspection fees separately | Held: No. The statutory/regulatory scheme treats inspection fees as separate and not subject to waiver under §2150(c) or §671.1(b)(10) |
| Whether the Department unlawfully adopted an "underground regulation" via a blanket no‑waiver policy | Young: Department’s blanket policy denying inspection‑fee waivers is effectively an unadopted rule and violates APA | Agencies: Their interpretation follows the plain language of CCR and Fish & Game Code; no underground regulation because regulation disallows waiver of inspection fees | Held: No underground regulation; Department’s position is consistent with the plain language of the statutes/regulations |
| Whether the trial court erred by not issuing a statement of decision | Young: Requested statement of decision on multiple factual/legal questions; failure to issue is reversible error | Agencies: Trial court decided pure legal issues with no disputed facts; so no statement of decision required under CCP §632 | Held: No. Statement of decision not required because the court resolved legal issues only and found no disputed facts |
| Standard of review for agency/regulatory interpretation | Young: (argued de novo review / trial court erred in procedure) | Agencies: Agency interpretations entitled to deference but not dispositive; appellate review is de novo for legal issues | Held: De novo review applies to legal interpretation; appellate court independently reviewed and affirmed the trial court’s legal ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Del Real v. City of Riverside, 95 Cal.App.4th 761 (appellate court 2002) (appellate court need not hunt the record for error; issues lacking citation may be waived)
- Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital, 72 Cal.App.4th 849 (appellate court 1999) (arguments unsupported by record citations may be stricken and deemed waived)
- Norasingh v. Lightbourne, 229 Cal.App.4th 740 (appellate court 2014) (legal issues in administrative writ reviewed de novo; agency interpretation entitled to weight but not controlling)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (California Supreme Court 2001) (appellate review of legal questions and application of precedent)
- Nolan v. City of Anaheim, 33 Cal.4th 335 (California Supreme Court 2004) (statutory interpretation begins with plain language and legislative intent)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., 194 Cal.App.4th 939 (appellate court 2011) (correct judgment will be affirmed on any theory supported by the record)