American Airlines, Inc. v. County of San Mateo
Decision Date | 08 April 1996 |
Docket Number | No. S044279,S044279 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | , 912 P.2d 1198, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2409, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4018 AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, Defendant and Respondent. |
Crosby, Heafy, Roach & May, Peter W. Davis, Jay R. Martin, John E. Carne, Kathy M. Banke, Oakland, Kimberly S. Stanley, San Diego, Goodwin, Procter & Hoar, John C. Englander, J. Anthony Downs and A. Lauren Carpenter, Boston, MA, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Thomas F. Casey III, County Counsel, San Mateo, Mary K. Raftery, Deputy County Counsel, De Witt W. Clinton, County Counsel, Los Angeles, Albert Ramseyer, Deputy County Counsel, Kelvin H. Booty, County Counsel, Alameda, James May, Assistant County Counsel, Richard Karlsson, Deputy County Counsel, L.B. Elam and Robert A. Ryan, Jr., County Counsel, Sacramento, John Seyman and Steve Kaiser, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.
*
Here we determine whether California's ad valorem tax system is subject to challenge under former 49 United States Code Appendix section 1513, subdivision (d) (former section 1513(d)), 1 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. In particular, we consider whether the plaintiff airlines have a private right of action under former section 1513(d), and whether the airlines have stated a claim for relief under either that section or 42 United States Code section 1983. The case involves 10 commercial airlines and 18 counties. The issues are of first impression, and involve solely the interpretation of federal law.
We conclude that the airlines do have a private right of action under former section 1513(d). In considering whether the airlines have stated a claim for relief under that statute, we note that the airlines assert two bases on which they claim former section 1513(d) has been violated. We conclude that they have stated a claim for relief under former section 1513(d) on the first basis by alleging unequal enforcement of California's facially neutral tax laws. We further conclude, however, that the airlines have failed to state a claim for relief under former section 1513(d) on the second basis, that is, by alleging that the assessment ratio for railroad personal property is lower than that for airline personal property. Finally, we conclude that the 42 United States Code section 1983 claim is not properly before us. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
Ten commercial airlines 2 (Airlines) brought separate actions against eighteen counties 3 (Counties) seeking a partial refund of and declaratory judgment regarding ad valorem personal property taxes. They alleged in each action that the Counties collected the taxes in violation of former section 1513(d) 4 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AAIA). The actions were coordinated in San Mateo County.
The Counties asserted below that the purpose of their motion for summary judgment was to determine whether the Airlines had stated a cause of action. (Valdez v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1055, 282 Cal.Rptr. 726.) Because the time for a demurrer had passed by the time the Counties' motion was filed, we treat the motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (People v. $20,000 U.S. Currency (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 682, 691, 286 Cal.Rptr. 746.)
The Counties filed a motion for summary judgment "on the grounds that there is no triable issue of material fact as to [the Counties] because [the Airlines] have failed to state a cause of action under [former] 49 App.U.S.C. section 1513(d), the Commerce Clause (U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8), the Supremacy Clause (U.S. Const., Art. VI), or the Fourteenth Amendment (U.S. Const., Amend. XIV, § 1)." The Counties also argued that the Airlines lacked a private right of action under former section 1513(d). 7
The trial court granted the Counties' motion on the following grounds:
The Court of Appeal affirmed and denied the Airlines' petition for rehearing. We granted the Airlines' petition for review.
Pursuant to its plenary commerce clause power, Congress has enacted three statutory schemes that prohibit tax discrimination against interstate carriers, the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, former 49 United States Code section 11503 8 (4-R Act), the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, former 49 United States Code section 11503a 9 (Motor Carrier Act), and the The pertinent parts of the AAIA, the 4-R Act, and the Motor Carrier Act are strikingly similar. The differences between the statutes are highlighted as follows. Former section 1513(d)(1)(A), the portion of former section 1513(d) at issue in this case, provides that a state shall not: "assess air carrier transportation property at a value that has a higher ratio to the true market value of the air carrier transportation property than the ratio that the assessed value of other commercial and industrial property of the same type in the same assessment jurisdiction has to the true market value of the other commercial and industrial property." (Italics added.) Former section 11503(b)(1) of the 4-R Act provides that a state shall not: "assess Given the strong similarity in statutory language and purpose between the three acts, cases interpreting one act are often relied on to interpret a different act. Moreover, because of this similarity, and the express reference in the legislative history of former section 1513(d) to the Motor Carrier Act (see ante, footnote 10) the legislative history of the 4-R and the Motor Carrier Acts is, as the parties agree, appropriately used to interpret former section 1513(d). (Western Air Lines v. Board of Equalization, supra, 480 U.S. at p. 131, 107 S.Ct. at pp. 1042-1043 [ ]; Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. v. Lynch (4th Cir.1983) 723 F.2d 365, 366, fn. 3 [...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Herpel v. Cnty. of Riverside
...on property in proportion to its value, as determined by assessment or appraisal." (American Airlines, Inc. v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 1110, 1124, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 251, 912 P.2d 1198.) Property interests may be subject to multiple ad valorem taxes. (See Cal. Const., art. XIII A,......
-
Guerrero v. Superior Court of Sonoma Cnty.
...of a challenged complaint] to achieve ‘ “ ‘substantial justice’ ” ' among the parties. ( American Airlines, Inc. v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 1110, 1118, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 251, 912 P.2d 1198.)” ( Sheppard, at p. 297, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 442.) If the trial court sustains a demurrer with......
-
Northwest Airlines v. Wi Dept. of Revenue
...the same as other transportation property (e.g., motor carrier and railroad property). See Am. Airlines, Inc. v. County of San Mateo, 12 Cal.4th 1110, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 251, 912 P.2d 1198, 1217 (1996) (concluding that assessing the of air carriers at 100 percent of fair market value while asse......
-
Santa Monica Beach, Ltd. v. Superior Court
...must be upheld against a demurrer if it states a cause of action on any theory. (American Airlines, Inc. v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 1110, 1118, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 251, 912 P.2d 1198; Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1226, 1232, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 900 P.2d 601.)......
-
Joyce L. Kennard: an independent streak on California's highest court.
...screened millions of California babies for disabling congenital disorders"). (129) See, e.g., Am. Airlines, Inc. v. County of San Mateo, 912 P.2d 1198, 1219 (Cal. 1996) (Kennard, J., concurring) (stressing that the county should have an opportunity to redress discriminatory taxation practic......