Franceschi v. Franchise Tax Bd.

Decision Date08 July 2016
Docket NumberB267719
Citation1 Cal.App.5th 247,205 Cal.Rptr.3d 75
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesErnest J. FRANCESCHI, Jr., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr., in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Diane S. Shaw, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stephen Lew, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and

Matthew C. Heyn, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendants and Respondents.

JOHNSON

, J.

Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr. (Franceschi) petitioned the superior court for a writ directing the then-serving members of the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB)Betty Yee, Jerome E. Horton, Michael Cohen, sued in their official capacities only—to cease publishing his name on the FTB's list of the state's “Top 500” income tax debtors (the List). In his petition, Franceschi argued that publication of his name on the List violates his right to privacy. The FTB's members demurred to the petition, arguing in the main that (1) Franceschi could not state a legally viable cause of action because publication of his name on the List did not violate his privacy rights and (2) even if he could state a viable privacy claim, the doctrine of res judicata barred his petition—Franceschi had previously sought redress in federal court for having his name placed on the List, but the district court dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The trial court agreed on both grounds and sustained the demurrer. As Franceschi did not seek leave to amend his petition, the trial court dismissed the action with prejudice. In addition, because it found the action to be “frivolous and groundless,” the trial court sanctioned Franceschi in the amount of $5,000.

On appeal, Franceschi challenges both the dismissal of his petition and the sanctions award. As discussed in more detail below, we hold that the petition was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. As that issue is determinative, we need not and do not reach the issue of whether Franceschi's petition stated a claim (or could be amended to state a claim) for violation of his privacy rights. We also hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Franceschi. Accordingly, we affirm the order.

BACKGROUND

Section 19195 of the Revenue and Taxation Code

requires the FTB to publish the List at least twice each year. (Rev. & Tax Code, § 19195, subd. (a).) Under section 494.5 of the Business and Professions Code, when a state licensing agency, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles, receives a delinquency list containing the name of a taxpayer to whom the agency has issued a license, that agency is required to suspend the taxpayer's license. (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 494.5, subds. (a)(1)(2) & (b)(4).) The State Bar of California is exempt from the mandatory suspension requirement but may recommend the suspension of a license if an attorney's name is included on the List. (Bus. & Prof Code, § 494.5, subd. (a)(3).) Franceschi is an attorney licensed to practice in California.

I. Franceschi's first action regarding the List

In February 2014, Franceschi received a “notice of public disclosure of tax delinquency” from the FTB, advising him that he owed over $242,000 in taxes and, that unless he corrected this delinquency by March 17, 2014, the FTB might add his name, his address, his occupational and professional licenses, and the amount owed to the FTB's public website—that is, put his name on the List. The FTB's notice further advised Franceschi that the inclusion of his name on the List might result in the denial or suspension of various licenses pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 494.5

.

A. Franceschi's complaint

On March 14, 2014, Franceschi filed a complaint in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (the First Action). The First Action was brought against the then-serving members of the FTB and the Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles. The gravamen of the complaint was that Franceschi's name should not have been put on the List and, by so doing, the defendants violated certain of his civil rights. More specifically, Franceschi asserted four claims for relief under title 42 United States Code section 1983

(section 1983 ): (1) violation of substantive and procedural due process rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (4) violation of the prohibition against bills of attainder set forth in article I, section 10, clause I of the United States Constitution. The complaint in the First Action, however, did not assert any claim based on Franceschi's right to privacy under either the United States Constitution or the California Constitution. In the First Action, Franceschi sought to have Revenue and Taxation Code section 19195 and Business and Professions Code section 494.5 declared unconstitutional and to prohibit defendants from “including [him] on the FTB list and/or suspending [his] California Driver's License.”

B. The dismissal of Franceschi's complaint

On August 4, 2014, after briefing and oral argument, the federal district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that Franceschi's complaint was defective on substantive legal grounds, not narrow procedural grounds. In a tentative order distributed to the parties in advance of the hearing, the district court indicated its willingness to grant Franceschi leave to amend his complaint. At the hearing, however, Franceschi declined this invitation, stating that he did not believe he could amend his complaint to plead additional facts that would correct what the district court found to be legal deficiencies in his claims.” As a result, the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of the defendants.

II. Franceschi's second action regarding the List

A. Franceschi's petition

On March 18, 2015, Franceschi petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandamus (the Second Action). As with the First Action, Franceschi sued the then-current members of the FTB. As with the First Action, Franceschi premised the petition on the fact that, pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 19195

and Business and Professions Code section 494.5, his name had been placed on the List. Accordingly, Franceschi sought the same relief as in the First Action; specifically, Franceschi sought to have those code sections declared unconstitutional—this time under the California Constitution—and to prohibit respondents from “publishing [his] name on the FTB ‘Top 500’ list of the largest state income tax debtors.” However, the reason for the requested relief in the state court petition differed from that in the federal court complaint—the Second Action was premised solely on Franceschi's right to privacy under the California Constitution. (See Cal. Const., art I, § 1.)

B. The dismissal of Franceschi's petition

Respondents demurred to the petition, arguing, inter alia, that the doctrine of res judicata barred the petition. In response, Franceschi did not dispute that the Second Action involved the same parties as in the First Action, rested on the same basic facts as the First Action, was based on the same primary right—to be free from having his name placed on the List—and sought the same relief. Instead, Franceschi argued that had he brought his mandamus/privacy claim in the First Action, the federal district court would not have exercised supplemental jurisdiction because the claim was based on complex issues of state law.

In an order dated August 24, 2015, the trial court, inter alia, rejected Franceschi's arguments against the application of the res judicata doctrine and did so for two reasons. “First, a litigant cannot avoid the impact of the rule against splitting causes of action by choosing to file the first action in a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, such as the federal district court. [Citation.] There is no reason [Franceschi] could not have brought his ... Section 1983

claims against Respondents in California state court and joined his petition for mandamus relief with those claims. His election to file the Section 1983 claims in federal court renders his subsequent mandamus petition in California a prohibited attempt to split his cause of action. [Citation.] Second, [Franceschi] asserts that forcing him to join his petition for mandamus to his federal suit only to have it then dismissed without prejudice under ... Section 1376(c) would have required an ‘idle act’ of him, in contravention of the maxims of jurisprudence. [Franceschi's] invocation of the maxims of jurisprudence to excuse what was clearly an effort on his part to secure a ‘second bite at the apple’ if his Federal Court action failed is unpersuasive and distasteful.”

Because Franceschi's attempt to split his claims between his federal and state actions rendered the Second Action “frivolous and groundless,” the trial court sanctioned Franceschi in the amount of $5,000. As an “experienced litigator,” Franceschi, in the words of the trial court, had “no excuse” for not knowing that the Second Action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata: [Franceschi's] filing of his first action in a court of limited jurisdiction (the Federal District Court) when he could have filed an action in California court that would have encompassed all of his claims, suggests a premeditated effort on [Franceschi's] part to reserve a second bite at the apple in the event his Federal Court case was unsuccessful.”

DISCUSSION

I. Standards of review
A. De novo review for a demurrer

A petition for a writ is subject to a demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1089

; Rodriguez v. Municipal Court (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 521, 526, 102 Cal.Rptr. 45.)

We independently review the ruling on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • People v. Johnson & Johnson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 2022
    ...capricious or patently absurd manner that result[s] in a manifest miscarriage of justice.’ " ( Franceschi v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 247, 256–257, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 75.) " ‘[T]he trial court's discretion in setting civil penalties generally will be upheld.’ " ( Overstock.com, s......
  • Guerrero v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 6, 2018
    ...ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 585, footnote 3, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 398.8 Franceschi v. Franchise Tax Bd . (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 247, 259, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 75 ; Gamble, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d at page 898, 280 Cal.Rptr. 457 ; Johnson v. American Airlines, Inc. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d......
  • Gray v. La Salle Bank
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 30, 2023
    ... ... prohibition against claim splitting. [Citations.]" ... ( Franceschi v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2016) 1 ... Cal.App.5th 247, 264.) ... [ 15 ] We express no opinion as to whether ... claim preclusion may ... ...
  • Grigorescu v. Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • April 24, 2019
    ...successive actions; he may not split his demands or defenses; he may not submit his case in piecemeal fashion."Franceschi v. Franchise Tax Bd., 1 Cal. App. 5th 247, 258 (2016). While res judicata deals with claim preclusion, collateral estoppel concerns issue preclusion. For collateral esto......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT