Outfront Media, LLC v. City of Los Angeles
| Decision Date | 13 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | B304025 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | OUTFRONT MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEALS from a judgment and an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 18STCP02798 Dennis J. Landin, Judge. Reversed in part and dismissed in part.
Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Beverly A. Cook, Assistant City Attorney, and Daniel M. Whitley, Deputy City Attorney for Defendant and Appellant.
Bewley, Lassleben & Miller, Leighton M. Anderson and Joseph A. Vinateri, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Outfront Media, LLC and its predecessor in interest, CBS Outdoor, LLC, reported and paid the City of Los Angeles's (the City) business tax under a classification subject to the highest tax rate.[1] In 2012, the City started an audit of Outfront's business, leading to an increased tax assessment for the company. Outfront challenged the assessment in administrative proceedings, contending it had misclassified itself and should be taxed at a lower rate. The City's Board of Review (BOR) ultimately agreed with Outfront and ordered that the assessment be revised accordingly, resulting in a determination that Outfront had overpaid its taxes by almost $970, 000. However, the City's Office of Finance concluded that any claim for a refund would be untimely.
Outfront presented the City with a claim for the overpaid amount under the Government Claims Act (GCA; Gov. Code, § 900 et seq.), which the City did not accept.[2] Outfront then petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandate, seeking to compel the City to refund the overpaid amount. Following a bench trial, the court granted Outfront's petition. However, it denied Outfront's subsequent motion for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Both sides separately appealed the court's rulings, and we consolidated the appeals for purposes of argument and decision.
In its appeal, the City challenges the grant of writ relief, arguing, inter alia: (1) the writ was unavailable to Outfront because it had an adequate legal remedy in the form of a refund action; and (2) Outfront's presentation of its GCA claim was untimely. We agree that a refund action provided Outfront an adequate legal remedy, precluding the issuance of a writ of mandate.[3] Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's grant of Outfront's petition. Given this disposition, we dismiss Outfront's appeal of the court's denial of attorney fees as moot.
Outfront is a national provider of outdoor advertising services, placing clients' ads on billboards, transit shelters, and other media. The City charges businesses operating within its jurisdiction business taxes under Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) section 21.00 et seq. For tax years 2010-2013, Outfront reported its business taxes to the City as a business engaged in “[p]rofessions and [o]ccupations” under LAMC section 21.49, a catchall category that provides for the highest tax rate. The company made payments in accordance with this self-classification in March 2010, February 2011, February 2012, and February 2013.
In December 2012, the City began a routine audit of Outfront's business. The only issue considered at the audit was the amount of Outfront's revenues attributable to its activity in the City. The audit concluded in April 2014, with a determination that Outfront had underpaid its taxes for 2010-2013 and owed the City about $190, 000 in back taxes and interest.
Outfront paid the additional amount the City demanded in May 2014, and appealed its assessment to an “Assessment Review Officer” in the City's Office of Finance. During this proceeding, Outfront argued for the first time that it had paid its taxes under the wrong classification: rather than a business engaged in “[p]rofessions and [o]ccupations” under LAMC section 21.49, it was actually engaged in “[r]ental of [o]ffice, [c]ommercial [b]uilding[s], etc.” under LAMC section 21.43. In February 2015, the Assessment Review Officer rejected Outfront's contention and largely upheld the City's assessment, adding about $500 in interest (which Outfront paid in March 2015).
Outfront appealed the Assessment Review Officer's decision to the BOR, reiterating its misclassification argument. Under LAMC section 21.16, subdivision (i), the BOR has the authority to “affirm or decrease the assessment, ” and its decision is “final.” The BOR ultimately accepted Outfront's position and instructed the Office of Finance to revise Outfront's assessment accordingly. Outfront received the BOR's decision in February 2018. The Office of Finance revised the audit in accordance with the BOR's decision and determined that Outfront had overpaid its taxes for 2010-2013 by almost $970, 000, but that this amount was “out of statute for [refund] purposes.”[4]
In March 2018, Outfront presented the City with a claim under the GCA for a refund of the entire overpaid amount. The City failed to take action, and the claim was deemed to have been rejected. (See § 912.4, subd. (c) [].)
Outfront then filed a petition for a writ of mandate, seeking a writ compelling the city “to refund taxes collected erroneously, in the amount determined by [the BOR]....” The city demurred, arguing, inter alia, that the writ could not be issued because Outfront had an adequate legal remedy in the form of an action for a refund. The City further argued that Outfront's presentation of its claim to the City was untimely under the GCA, which required Outfront to present its claim for a refund of each overpayment within one year of accrual. The City contended that a refund claim accrued for each of Outfront's overpayments at the time of the relevant payment.
The trial court overruled the City's demurrer. It concluded that Outfront sufficiently alleged that following the BOR's decision, the City had a clear ministerial duty to repay the overpaid amounts. It also found that Outfront sufficiently alleged that it had no adequate remedy at law, as “the [BOR] has already issued its decision, and yet the City has refused to remit the sums awarded.” Finally, the court concluded that Outfront sufficiently alleged that its claims were timely. The court reasoned that Outfront's claim was based on the BOR's decision, and that Outfront presented its GCA claim to the City shortly after it learned of that decision. It further reasoned that “the administrative proceedings that followed the overpayment toll[ed] the [GCA] period.” The matter proceeded to a bench trial.[5]
Following trial, the court granted Outfront's petition. The court concluded that the City “had a duty to correctly assess and calculate the tax amount....” It did not expressly address whether Outfront had an adequate legal remedy. As to the timeliness of Outfront's presentation of its GCA claim, the court restated its prior conclusions: The court later denied Outfront's post judgment motion for attorney fees. The City timely appealed the court's grant of Outfront's petition.[6]
Challenging the trial court's grant of a writ of mandate, the City argues, inter alia: (1) Outfront could not obtain the writ because it had an adequate legal remedy in the form of a refund action; and (2) Outfront presented its GCA claim in an untimely manner. We agree that an action for a refund provided Outfront an adequate legal remedy to seek the recovery of its tax overpayments, rendering a writ of mandate unavailable.
When the facts are undisputed, we review a trial court's ruling on a petition for a writ of mandate de novo. (Skulason v. California Bureau of Real Estate (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 562, 567.) A writ of mandate may issue only “where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, in the ordinary course of law.” (Code Civ Proc., § 1086.) It is well established that an action for a tax refund is an adequate remedy precluding the issuance of a writ of mandate. (See, e.g., Schoenberg v. County of Los Angeles Assessment Appeals Bd. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1355 (Schoenberg) []; Little v. Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Bds. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 915, 923 [similar]; County of Sacramento v. Assessment Appeals Bd. No. 2 (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 654, 672 [similar].) It is undisputed that as to all its overpayments, Outfront could have filed timely refund actions. Thus, writ relief was unavailable to it.
Defending the trial court's reasoning in denying the City's demurrer, Outfront contends a refund action was inadequate because Outfront “was in the position analogous to that of a litigant who, having succeeded in its legal remedy, nevertheless finds itself unable to collect from the still-recalcitrant debtor.” It argues that a refund action could not vindicate the “‘specific legal right'” on which its petition rested, viz., the right to enforce the BOR's decision, rather than a substantive...
To continue reading
Request your trial