Chaudry v. Cnty. of San Diego
| Decision Date | 20 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21cv1847-GPC(AHG) |
| Parties | A. WAHEED CHAUDRY, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; TODD MCCRACKEN; LUZETTE WARNER; ELIZABETH MILLER; ALEJANDRO CHAVIRA, AND Does 1 through 25, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
A. WAHEED CHAUDRY, Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; TODD MCCRACKEN; LUZETTE WARNER; ELIZABETH MILLER; ALEJANDRO CHAVIRA, AND Does 1 through 25, Defendant.
No. 21cv1847-GPC(AHG)
United States District Court, S.D. California
September 20, 2022
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION [Dkt. Nos. 8 9 10.]
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel United States District Judge
Defendants Todd McCracken and Luzette Werner (erroneously sued as Luzette Warner) (“Assessor Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(1) & 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 8.) Defendants Alejandro Chavira and Elizabeth Miller (“AAB Defendants”) also filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) & 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 10.) Lastly, Defendant County of San Diego (“County”) filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) & 12(b)(6) and joined in Defendants Todd McCracken and Luzette Werner's motion to dismiss. (Dkt.
No. 9.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 9, 2022.[1] (Dkt. No. 24.) Replies were filed on September 13, 2022. (Dkt. Nos. 25, 26.) Based on the reasoning below, the Court GRANTS all Defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Background
Plaintiff A. Waheed Chaudry (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Defendants County of San Diego (“County”), Todd McCracken (“McCracken”), Luzette Werner (“Werner”), erroneously sued as Luzette Warner, Elizabeth Miller (“Miller”) and Alejandro Chavira (“Chavira”) for violations of federal and state laws related to a dispute with his California property tax assessment and Defendants' alleged unconstitutional administration of the state tax system governing assessment appeals. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.)
Plaintiff is a resident of the County of San Diego, California. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendant McCracken is an employee and/or agent of the Assessor and County who was or is a Manager or Supervisor reporting to the County Assessor. (Id. ¶ 7.) Defendant Werner is an employee and/or agent of the Assessor and County, who was or is an appraiser reporting to the County Assessor. (Id. ¶ 8.) Defendant Miller is an employee and/or agent of the Assessment Appeals Section and the County, who was or is a supervisor reporting to Assessment Appeal Board and the County. (Id. ¶ 9.) Defendant Chavira is an employee and/or agent of the Assessor Appeals Section/Assessment Appeal Board and the County, directly reporting to Defendant Supervisor Miller. (Id. ¶ 10.)
Plaintiff owns 1/2 interest in the real property located at 12212 Spruce Grove Place, San Diego, CA, Assessor Parcel Number 3200711900 (“Property”). (Id. ¶ 13.) Around
November 28, 2016, Plaintiff recorded a quit claim deed transferring his 1/2 interest in the Property to his brother. (Id. ¶ 14). Plaintiff's brother declined to accept the Property so Plaintiff recorded a recission deed on May 17, 2017. (Id.)
On May 11, 2017, the Assessor reassessed the Property based on the November 28, 2016 change in ownership for a base value of $1,641,080. (Id. ¶ 15). Following this assessment, Plaintiff claims that he spoke twice with Defendant Werner, an appraiser in the Assessor's Office, and that Werner refused to meet with him in person and would not allow him to inspect the file regarding the assessment without first putting his request in writing to identify each document he wanted, and the request would be sent to the Division Chief for approval. (Id. ¶¶ 16-18.) Plaintiff's last contact with Werner was on November 27, 2017. (Id. ¶ 16.)
On November 30, 2017, on advice of a clerk in the Assessment Appeals Section, Plaintiff filed two separate appeals applications with the Assessment Appeal Board (“AAB”), Application No. 1702277 and Application No. 1702039, challenging the assessed base value as of 1/1/2017. (Id. ¶ 19; Dkt. No. 8-2, Ds' RJN,[2] Exs. A & B.) Plaintiff did not designate the applications as claims for refund because he was advised by the clerk in the Assessment Appeals Section not to check the “Yes” box for a claim for refund. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 21; Dkt. No. 8-2, Ds' RJN Exs. A-B.) He was told that if he did not check the “Yes” box, he would have four years to submit his claim for refund to the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 21.)
On August 23, 2018, Plaintiff received hearing notices set for October 4, 2018. (Id. ¶ 24). Plaintiff alleges the notices were defective because the postage stamp of August 20, 2018 was different from the stated mailing date of August 15, 2018. (Id. ¶ 24; Dkt. No. 8-2, Ds' RJN, Ex. D at 17.[3])
On September 14, 2018, Plaintiff faxed an application dated September 13, 2018, and submitted a follow up letter dated October 2, 2018 to the AAB, noting the defect in the hearing notices, requested new notices to be sent and also informed that he would not be able to appear personally at the October 4, 2018 hearing due to health issues. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 25; Dkt. No. 8-2, Ds' RJN, Exs. C & D.) He also informed AAB that defects in the notices made them null and void. (Id.) He claims that even though the AAB had no jurisdiction, the Assessor reset the hearing from October 4, 2018 to February 14, 2019. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 26; Dkt. No. 8-2, Ds' RJN, Ex. E.) Plaintiff did not know the hearing had been reset unlawfully until January 30, 2019[4] when Elizabeth Miller informed him. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 26.) He claims that the Clerk of the AAB, Miller, McCracken and Werner were present at the October 4, 2018 hearing and even though they knew of the defective notices, they concealed that information from the AAB in violation of his due process rights. (Id. ¶ 27.)
Due to health issues, Plaintiff was unable to prepare for the February 14, 2019 hearing and to appear personally so he faxed another request to continue on January 23, 2019. (Id. ¶¶ 29, 30 Dkt. No. 8-2, Ds' RJN, Ex. F.) He further reiterated that the hearing notices setting the October 4, 2018 hearing were defective and requested new and valid notices of hearing but none were sent but noted that the AAB continued the hearing to February 14, 2019. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 30.)
Due to his illness, Plaintiff was unable to check his messages until February 7, 2019 and discovered several messages from Kathy, in the Assessment Appeals Section,
where she stated that the Assessor would not agree to a July 2019 hearing date but suggested an August 14, 2019 hearing date. (Id. ¶ 31.) She also informed him that because it was his second request, he must agree to a two-year waiver. (Id.) On February 7, 2019, Plaintiff faxed a letter noting that he was not knowledgeable about the two-year waiver but “if law requires then he agrees to a two-year waiver.” (Id. ¶ 32; Dkt. No. 8-2, Ds' RJN, Ex. G.) He also stated that this was his first request to continue because in his letter dated October 2, 2018, he informed the Appeal Board that the hearing notices setting the October 4, 2018 hearing were defective which rendered them null and void. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 32.)
On February 8, 2019, Kathy left another message requesting a two-year waiver. (Id. ¶ 33.) In response, on February 12, 2019, Plaintiff faxed another letter noting that he had already agreed to a two-year waiver by his February 7, 2019 letter and further restated that he agreed to a two-year waiver if the law requires it. (Id.; Dkt. No. 8-2, Ds' RJN, Ex. H at 28.) On February 12, 2019, at 4:36 p.m. a voice mail message was left by Mr. George Seikaly, asking for two-year waiver but not explaining why...
To continue reading
Request your trial