Citizens Against Forced Annexation v. County of Santa Clara

• Decision Date: 16 March 1984
• Citation: 153 Cal.App.3d 89,200 Cal.Rptr. 166
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: CITIZENS AGAINST FORCED ANNEXATION et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA et al., Defendants and Respondents. A015452.

Page 166

200 Cal.Rptr. 166

153 Cal.App.3d 89

CITIZENS AGAINST FORCED ANNEXATION et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA et al., Defendants and Respondents.

A015452.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

March 16, 1984.

As Modified April 5, 1984.

Larry Sleizer, Palo Alto, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Donald J. Fallon, Deputy County Counsel, Santa Clara County, Robert J. Logan, City Atty., Robert R. Cimino, Sr., Deputy City Atty., San Jose, for defendants and respondents.

ROUSE, Associate Justice.

Statement of the Case

Plaintiff, Citizens Against Forced Annexation (CAFA), is an unincorporated association composed of taxpayers, residents, landowners and/or registered voters in either the City of San Jose (San Jose) or territories within Santa Clara County. CAFA, and numerous individual plaintiffs, filed an action challenging the validity of more than 125 annexations (and proposed annexations) of territories to San Jose that were accomplished without elections, pursuant to section 35150, subdivision (f), of the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA) (Govt.Code, § 35000 et seq.). Plaintiffs appeal from that part of a judgment in which the trial court dismissed certain individual plaintiffs and certain territories from the action.

Procedural History

On December 1, 1980, CAFA and 44 individual plaintiffs filed a complaint against San Jose, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (Board), the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (Commission), and the individual members of the Board, the Commission, and the San Jose City Council. Plaintiffs brought their action under section 35005 of MORGA, which incorporates the procedures found in sections 860-870 of the Code of Civil Procedure and makes them applicable to actions challenging the validity of territorial annexations. ¹ Sections 860 and 863 of the Code of Civil Procedure permit "any interested person" to bring a validation action, but such an action must be commenced within 60 days of the governmental action being challenged. ²

On March 6, 1981, before answering the complaint, defendants filed a demurrer and motion to strike on grounds that plaintiffs were not "interested persons" under section 863 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore lacked standing to challenge any of the territorial annexations; ³ that challenges to annexations that were completed more than 60 days before the complaint was filed were barred by the statute of limitations contained in section 860 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and that challenges to annexations that were not completed when the complaint was filed were premature in that section 35005 of MORGA only permits challenges to "completed" governmental actions.

After a hearing on the demurrer and motion on March 23, 1981, the court sustained with leave to amend that part of the demurrer which had challenged the plaintiffs' standing. The court found that "no plaintiff has alleged sufficient ultimate facts to establish such plaintiffs' standing to bring the action with respect to any of the territories whose annexation was challenged ...." In addition, the court sustained without leave to amend that part of the demurrer concerning the challenges to annexations which were barred by the statute of limitations or premature. The territories whose annexations could not be challenged were then dismissed from the action.

On April 20, 1981, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. It purported to add 88 new individual plaintiffs. The amended complaint alleged, generally, that the individual plaintiffs were "taxpayers, residents, owners of land or registered voters" within Santa Clara County, San Jose, and/or the territories whose annexations were being challenged.

The amended complaint listed over 120 individuals and alleged their land ownership, residency, or voter registration in particular annexed territories; that they "have been directly affected by defendants' decision to annex [certain lands] without allowing a protest or an election on said decision"; and that they have "an interest in having the Municipal Organization Act properly carried out."

The amended complaint also alleged that CAFA has its membership and meeting place in Santa Clara County; that it has over 100 members, who are taxpayers, residents, landowners and/or registered voters in the annexed territories or San Jose who have been directly affected by the annexations; and that all of the individual plaintiffs are members of CAFA.

On May 22, 1981, defendants filed a second demurrer and motion to strike. ⁴ After a hearing on June 12, 1981, the court sustained defendants' demurrer as follows:

(1) All 88 new plaintiffs were dismissed because:

(a) their addition violated the court's prior order, which granted leave to amend only to the original plaintiffs;

(b) their individual causes of action were barred by the 60-day statute of limitations (c) the court lacked jurisdiction over their causes of action because of the statute of limitations bar; and

(d) none of them has standing with respect to all the territories, and their standing with respect to particular territories was of no effect because their causes of action regarding those particular territories were barred by (a) through (c) above.

(2) Only 21 of the original plaintiffs had standing or causes of action, and their causes of action related only to those territories in which they alleged residence, land ownership, or voter registration. Plaintiffs alleged sufficient connection to 19 territories, and only the annexations of these could be challenged. The rest of the territories were dismissed from the action.

On July 14, 1981, defendants answered the amended complaint. On September 11, 1981, plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal.

Issues

I. Dismissal of 10 Specified Territories

Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred when it dismissed 10 specified territories ⁵ from the action. They argue that CAFA has standing to challenge the annexations of the 10 specified territories because it alleged that its members are residents, taxpayers, registered voters, and/or landowners in San Jose, Santa Clara County, and/or the annexed territories. Defendants argue that CAFA has no standing because (1) regardless of its membership, CAFA itself is not beneficially interested in the annexations and is not a real party in interest, and (2) CAFA failed to allege facts sufficient to maintain a representative or class action on behalf of a class with standing.

For reasons set forth below, we conclude that CAFA has standing regarding the 10 specified territories.

As has been noted, section 863 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 35005 of MORGA permit "any interested person" to bring an action challenging certain decisions made pursuant to MORGA. Since the enactment of MORGA, no court has determined who is an "interested person" under section 863 in the context of a challenge to the validity of territorial annexations. In addressing this issue, the trial court ruled that such an interested person was one who alleged land ownership, residency, or voter registration in a particular annexed territory. Apparently the trial court followed a line of pre-MORGA cases in which annexations were challenged via extraordinary writs, and standing to seek such relief required the showing of a close connection between the annexed territory and the petitioner seeking relief. (See e.g., Amer. Distl. Co. v. City Council, Sausalito (1950) 34 Cal.2d 660, 213 P.2d 704; Fuller v. San Bernardino Valley Mun. Wat. Dist. (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 52, 51 Cal.Rptr. 120; Guerrieri v. City of Fontana (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 417, 42 Cal.Rptr. 781; Wine v. Council of City of Los Angeles (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 157, 2 Cal.Rptr. 94; Johnson v. City of San Pablo (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 447, 283 P.2d 57; Jefferson Union Sch. Dist. v. City Council (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 264, 277 P.2d 104; and Potter v. City Council (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 141, 227 P.2d 25.) ⁶ Some of these cases held that taxpayers in an annexing city lacked standing because they were not beneficially interested in the territorial annexations solely because of their status as such taxpayers. (Fuller v. San Bernardino Valley Mun. Wat. Dist., supra, 242 Cal.App.2d 52, 57, 213 P.2d 704; Wine v. Council of City of Los Angeles, supra, 177 Cal.App.2d 157, 164-168, 2 Cal.Rptr. 94; Potter v. City Council, supra, 102 Cal.App.2d 141, 146, 227 P.2d 25.) However, a beneficial interest in an annexation was shown by property owners in an annexed territory (Amer. Distl. Co. v. City Council, Sausalito, supra, 34 Cal.2d 667, 213 P.2d 704; Guerrieri v. City of Fontana, supra, 232 Cal.App.2d 417, 419, 42 Cal.Rptr. 781); a city which was competing to annex the same territory (Johnson v. City of San Pablo, supra, 132 Cal.App.2d 447, 458, 283 P.2d 57; and a school district, part of whose territory would have been excluded from the district if annexed (Jefferson Union Sch. Dist. v. City Council, supra, 129 Cal.App.2d 264, 267, 277 P.2d 104).

In this instance, we agree with the trial court that plaintiffs who allege an interested relationship to particular annexed territories through land ownership, residency, or voter registration have standing under section 863 of the Code of Civil Procedure to challenge the annexations of those particular territories. Thus, in applying its ruling to the amended complaint, the trial court held that the action could be maintained only "to the extent that ... 21 'original plaintiffs,' ... have standing or a cause of action respecting ... 19 'original territories' mentioned in the complaint, respecting which such original plaintiffs respectively allege[d] land ownership, residence or voter registration ...."

Pertinent to the issue of CAFA's standing is the fact that, although the court dismissed numerous plaintiffs, it did not dismiss CAFA, therefore, CAFA, an original plaintiff, remains in the action....