Franceschi v. Yee

Citation887 F.3d 927
Decision Date11 April 2018
Docket NumberNo. 14-56493,14-56493
Parties Ernest Joseph FRANCESCHI, Jr., Attorney, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Betty T. YEE, President of California Franchise Tax Board in her Official Capacity; George Runner, Board Member of California Franchise Tax Board in his Official Capacity; Jean Shiomoto, Director of California Department of Motor Vehicles in her Official Capacity; Michael Cohen, Board Member of California Franchise Tax Board in his Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Ernest J. Franceschi Jr. (argued), Franceschi Law Corporation, Los Angeles, California, pro se Plaintiff-Appellant.

Matthew C. Heyn (argued), Deputy Attorney General; Stephen Lew, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Paul D. Gifford, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Los Angeles, California; for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: Michael Daly Hawkins, Barrington D. Parker,** and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

PARKER, Circuit Judge:

This action challenges the constitutionality of Section 19195 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code and Section 494.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. Section 19195 establishes a public list of the top 500 delinquent state taxpayers who owe in excess of $100,000. In turn, Section 494.5 provides for suspension of the driver's license of a taxpayer on the delinquent list until full payment of the tax obligation is arranged.

Appellant Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr., Esq. is a major tax delinquent. Anticipating the suspension of his driver's license after the publication of the next edition of the top 500 list—which would include him—Franceschi sued, under 42 U.S.C § 1983, challenging Sections 19195 and 494.5 on various federal constitutional grounds. The District Court rejected his claims and dismissed the complaint. See Franceschi v. Chiang , No. 2:14-cv-01960-CAS-SH, 2014 WL 12069866 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014). Franceschi appeals and we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Franceschi is an attorney who has been licensed to practice law in California since 1984. Appellee Betty Yee is the chairwoman of the California Franchise Tax Board (the "FTB "); appellees George Runner and Michael Cohen are members of the FTB; and appellee Jean Shiomoto is the director of the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

Despite being a member of the bar for many years, Franceschi failed to file any California state income tax returns between 1995 and 2012 and failed to pay any state income taxes, penalties, or interest for those years, contending that he owed none. For each of those years, the FTB gave written notice of proposed deficiency assessments of taxes, interest and penalties (an "NPA ").

California's Revenue and Taxation Code sets forth a framework under which a delinquent taxpayer, like Franceschi, has multiple opportunities to challenge deficiency assessments. Cal. Rev. & Tax Code § 19031, et seq . At the outset, the FTB is required to send the taxpayer notice of the proposed deficiency assessment for any tax deficiency it proposes to assess. Id. § 19033(a). The taxpayer may then file a protest within sixty days. Id. § 19041(a). If the taxpayer files a protest, the FTB must reconsider the assessment and, if the taxpayer so requests, grant the taxpayer a hearing on the deficiency. Id. § 19044(a). If the deficiency is not resolved at this stage, a taxpayer has further recourse by appealing to the State Board of Equalization. Id. § 19045. After the State Board of Equalization rules on the matter, a still dissatisfied taxpayer can then petition the State Board of Equalization for rehearing. Id. § 19048.

Still further, a taxpayer has an additional opportunity to be heard on the validity of his or her tax delinquency by paying the taxes and filing a claim for refund with the FTB. Id. § 19382. Utilization of this procedure here would have permitted Franceschi to both challenge the original assessments and to retain his driver's licence while doing so. If the FTB denied the claim he could have sued for a refund in California Superior Court. Franceschi concedes that he did not avail himself of any of these multiple remedial procedures.

If, however, a taxpayer like Franceschi fails to protest the NPA within sixty days, the proposed deficiency assessment becomes final. Id. § 19042. Once the assessment becomes final, the FTB can demand payment and the amount owed becomes a lien on the taxpayer's real property in California. Id. §§ 19049, 19221.

The FTB compiles a list of the top 500 tax delinquents in the state (the "Top 500 List "). Id. § 19195(a). Specifically, Section 19195 directs the FTB to "make available as a matter of public record at least twice each calendar year a list of the 500 largest tax delinquencies in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000)[.]"1 Id. Prior to placing a delinquent taxpayer on the Top 500 List, the FTB is required to provide thirty days' notice to the taxpayer. Id. § 19195(d). If within thirty days after this notice, the delinquent taxpayer does not remit the amount due or make arrangements with the FTB for payment, the delinquent taxpayer is named on the Top 500 List. Id.

Important for this appeal, effective January 1, 2012, Section 494.5 was enacted to provide that a state governmental licensing entity "shall suspend" a license if a licensee's name is included on the Top 500 List.2 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 494.5(a)(1). Specifically, Section 494.5 provides that, on at least ninety days' notice, the California Department of Motor Vehicles "shall suspend" the driver's license of any licensee whose name is included on the Top 500 List. Id. § 494.5(a)(2), (b)(1), (f)(1).3 Within this notice period, a delinquent taxpayer can challenge inclusion and seek to avoid revocation of a driver's license by (1) presenting a written submission that the tax delinquency was paid, (2) entering into a payment agreement, or (3) demonstrating financial hardship. Id. § 494.5(h).

Franceschi's cumulative tax deficit encompasses the years 1995 through 2012. After the enactment of Section 494.5 in 2012, the FTB, in April 2012, March 2013, and March 2014, served him with NPAs for the years 2010 through 2012. Franceschi then had sixty days to protest these additional proposed deficiencies. He took no steps to do so.

Franceschi alleges that he received notice from the FTB dated February 2014 indicating that he was to be included in the next publication of the Top 500 List because he owed $242,276.73 in back taxes. Franceschi further alleges that he anticipated that the DMV would suspend his driver license after the next publication of the Top 500 List.

In an effort to forestall his suspension, Franceschi sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting claims for violations of his procedural and substantive due process rights, and the Equal Protection Clause.4 In addition he claimed that the 2012 enactment of Section 494.5 constituted a bill of attainder. See Franceschi , 2014 WL 12069866, at *1. Franceschi also sought a preliminary injunction seeking to prohibit the publication of his name on the Top 500 List and the suspension of his driver's license. During the pendency of this action, after the District Court denied Franceschi's application for interlocutory relief, the DMV suspended his driver's license.

The defendants moved to dismiss Franceschi's lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The District Court concluded that the statutory scheme Franceschi challenged was constitutional. It held, among other things, that Franceschi had received adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before his license was suspended. It also determined that the application of Sections 19195 and 494.5 to him did not violate his substantive due process rights by impermissibly burdening his right to practice his profession or having retroactive effect, did not violate his equal protection rights, and did not constitute a bill of attainder. Id. at *1–*13. Accordingly, the District Court denied Franceschi's request for injunctive relief and dismissed his lawsuit.

This appeal followed. We review de novo the District Court's decision to dismiss Franceschi's complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). See Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. , 519 F.3d 1025, 1030–31 (9th Cir. 2008).

II. DISCUSSION
A. Procedural Due Process

Franceschi's procedural due process claim has two elements. He must plausibly allege: "(1) a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and (2) a denial of adequate procedural protections." Hufford v. McEnaney 249 F.3d 1142, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Most licenses are constitutionally protected property and cannot be taken away without procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Bell v. Burson , 402 U.S. 535, 539, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971). "[T]he Due Process Clause applies to the deprivation of a driver's license by the State[.]" Dixon v. Love , 431 U.S. 105, 112, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977).

The essence of procedural due process is that "individuals whose property interests are at stake are entitled to ‘notice and an opportunity to be heard.’ " Dusenbery v. United States , 534 U.S. 161, 167, 122 S.Ct. 694, 151 L.Ed.2d 597 (2002) (quoting United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop. , 510 U.S. 43, 48, (114 S.Ct. 492, 126 L.Ed.2d 490, 1993) ). It is well-established that because due process is a flexible concept, "[p]recisely what procedures the Due Process Clause requires in any given case is a function of context." Brewsterv. Bd. of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist. , 149 F.3d 971, 983 (9th Cir. 1998) ; see also Morrissey v. Brewer , 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).

On appeal, Franceschi advances two main arguments why the challenged statutory scheme provides inadequate process prior to the deprivation of his driver's license. First, he argues that Section 494.5...

To continue reading

Request your trial
71 cases
  • Crossley v. California, Case No.: 20-cv-0284-GPC-JLB
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • August 17, 2020
    ...traditionally have protected as fundamental are included within the substantive protection of the Due Process Clause." Franceschi v. Yee , 887 F.3d 927, 937 (9th Cir.), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 648, 202 L.Ed.2d 493 (2018). Substantive due process has, therefore, been largely......
  • Rasmussen v. Garrett, Case No. 3:20-cv-00865-IM
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • September 27, 2020
    ...at 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258 (noting that substantive due process protects only certain "fundamental" liberty interests); Franceschi v. Yee , 887 F.3d 927, 937 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that "[t]he range of liberty interests that substantive due process protects is narrow," and therefore "[o]nl......
  • Tandon v. Newsom
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • February 5, 2021
    ...education and a person's bodily integrity, which are ‘deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.’ " Franceschi v. Yee , 887 F.3d 927, 937 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Moore v. East Cleveland , 431 U.S. 494, 503, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) ). Neither the United States Suprem......
  • Denis v. Ige
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • May 12, 2021
    ...on fundamental rights." Pakdel v. City & Cty. of San Francisco , 798 F. App'x 162, 163 (9th Cir. 2020) ; accord Franceschi v. Yee , 887 F.3d 927, 937 (9th Cir. 2018) ; Bowers v. Whitman , 671 F.3d 905, 917 (9th Cir. 2012). The "right to breathe oxygen without restriction" is not a fundament......
  • 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