Patane v. Kiddoo
Decision Date | 11 April 1985 |
Citation | 167 Cal.App.3d 1207,214 Cal.Rptr. 9 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Carmen PATANE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Kaye R. KIDDOO, as Director, etc., Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 24121. |
Hofvendahl, Roessler, Hirsch & Sussman, and Russell L. Hofvendahl, San Jose, for plaintiff and appellant.
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Edward P. Hollingshead, Robert D. Milam and Charles Kobayashi, Deputy Attys. Gen., for defendant and respondent.
Plaintiff instituted an action for refund of taxes which he claimed were illegally assessed and collected by the Employment Development Department (department) as unemployment insurance contributions for 1976. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprived the trial court of jurisdiction over the action. 1 The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment accordingly. Plaintiff appeals. We shall affirm the judgment, holding that plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies is established beyond reasonable dispute and that such failure constitutes a fatal departure from the procedure governing an action for refund of taxes to which no extra statutory exceptions apply.
In 1976 plaintiff entered into written agreements with certain individuals called share farmers, whereby they would harvest plaintiff's cucumber crop in exchange for 50% of the gross proceeds of the harvest. Each contracting share farmer warranted that he was an independent contractor.
In 1977, the Department of Benefit Payments, the department's predecessor agency, audited plaintiff's operations to ascertain whether the share farmers were in fact employees of plaintiff or independent contractors. The agency concluded that the share farmers were plaintiff's employees (see Unemp.Ins.Code, § 601) and assessed plaintiff $5,485.86 as employer contributions to unemployment insurance. (Unemp.Ins.Code, § 976; hereinafter all references to sections of a code are to the Unemployment Insurance Code.)
Plaintiff filed a petition for reassessment (former § 1133, see § 1222). An administrative law judge ruled the share farmers were independent contractors and overturned the assessment (former § 1134; see § 1223). 2 On appeal by the department, the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (board) reversed and reinstated the assessment.
Plaintiff paid the assessment, then filed a claim for refund ( § 1178) in which he realleged the share farmers were independent contractors. The department denied his claim. On October 19, 1981, plaintiff filed a "Petition from Denial of Claim for Refund" ( § 1222). Thereafter plaintiff's attorney received a letter from the board informing him that a hearing is not required on a petition if a prior hearing has been afforded the petitioner involving the same issues, but advising that if the petitioner were to file an affidavit setting forth new and additional evidence in support of his petition, an additional hearing might be granted. The letter concluded: No new and additional evidence was submitted and on August 27, 1982, Administrative Law Judge Berwald denied plaintiff's petition in a written opinion.
Plaintiff filed the instant action in the Sacramento Superior Court on October 22, 1982. He later amended his complaint to allege, inter alia, that on October 19, 1981, he filed an appeal "before" the board from the denial of his claim for refund. Thereafter, the department moved for summary judgment on the ground plaintiff in fact had failed to appeal the denial of his refund claim to the board, thereby depriving the court of jurisdiction to entertain his suit for refund of 1976 contributions. The court granted the motion and entered judgment for the department.
The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of establishing that the claims asserted by the adverse party are entirely without merit on any legal theory. (Lipson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 362, 374, 182 Cal.Rptr. 629, 644 P.2d 822.) To prevail, the movant must identify the issues of material fact which it claims are not subject to reasonable dispute, furnish documentary evidence revealing this lack of dispute, and show that the facts so established are dispositive of the non-movant's claims. (Code Civ.Proc., §§ 1010 and 437c, subds. (b) and (c).) "The motion shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." (Code Civ.Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)
The sole object of plaintiff's action is the refund of taxes which he claims the department illegally assessed and collected. Article 13, section 32 of the California Constitution, which allows a taxpayer to maintain an action against the state for refund of illegally assessed taxes, provides: In accordance therewith, section 1241 provides the manner of an employer action to recover improperly assessed unemployment insurance contributions. Subdivision (a) of that section provides in relevant part:
Section 1241, subdivision (a), establishes two prerequisites to an action for refund of employer contributions. First, the employer must file with the department a timely claim for refund. The department does not contend this requirement was not satisfied. Second, the employer must commence the action within 90 days after service of notice of the board's decision upon an appeal from the department's denial of his refund claim. Inasmuch as plaintiff could not have satisfied this prerequisite to judicial relief unless he first appealed to the board from denial of his refund claim, we turn our attention to this threshold requirement.
An appeal to the board initiates the final stage in an administrative review process established by the Unemployment Insurance Code. Within 30 days after the employer receives notice of the department's denial of his claim for refund, he may file a petition for review by an administrative law judge of the department's decision. ( § 1222.) Upon the timely filing of the petition, an administrative law judge shall review the matter and grant a hearing thereon unless the employer has previously been afforded a hearing involving the same issues. ( § 1223.) If within 60 days the administrative law judge has not rendered a decision, the employer may consider the petition denied and appeal to the board. ( § 1224, subd. (a).) Otherwise, the employer has 30 days after service of notice of decision denying his petition in which to file an appeal to the board. ( § 1224, subd. (a).) "Failure [timely] to file an appeal from an adverse administrative law judge's decision to the appeals board" constitutes "A waiver of any demand against the state ... on account of overpayment" ( § 1179, subd. (c)), and the administrative law juddge's decision thereupon becomes final. ( § 1224, subd. (a)(1).)
As noted, the amended complaint alleges that "On or about October 19, 1981 Plaintiff filed an appeal from the Denial of Claim for Refund before the CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS BOARD [sic ]." The burden of the department's motion for summary judgment was that, as a matter of law, this allegation could not be sustained. In his declaration supporting the motion, the board's chief counsel stated in relevant part:
In his declaration opposing the motion, plaintiff's attorney stated in part: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barclays Bank Internat. Ltd. v. Franchise Tax Bd.
... ... (See Shiseido Cosmetics (America), supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at p. 488, 286 Cal.Rptr. 690; Patane" v. Kiddoo (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1207, 214 Cal.Rptr. 9; Woosley v. State of California (1992) 3 Cal.4th 758, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 30, 838 P.2d 758.) ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Plaza Hollister Ltd. Partnership v. County of San Benito
... ... (Bozaich v. State of California (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 688, 698 [108 Cal.Rptr. 392] ... )" (Patane v. Kiddoo (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1207, 1214, 214 Cal.Rptr. 9.) The doctrine prevents interference with the subject matter jurisdiction of another ... ...
- Lockton v. O'Rourke
-
Agnew v. State Bd. of Equalization
... ... 742; see also Shiseido Cosmetics (America) Ltd. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 478, 487-489, 286 Cal.Rptr. 690; Patane v. Kiddoo (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1207, 1213-1214, 214 Cal.Rptr. 9.) ... This requires a taxpayer to comply with the procedures ... ...