Randall v. Franchise Tax Board of State of California
| Decision Date | 21 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 25735.,25735. |
| Citation | 453 F.2d 381 |
| Parties | Harold RANDALL, for himself and all Others similarly situated, Appellant, v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Thomas C. Sponsler, Jr., Long Beach, Cal. (argued), Boyd S. Lemon, Long Beach, Cal., Howard M. Van Elgort, San Pedro, Cal., for appellant.
Neal J. Gobar, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), Evelle J. Younger, Cal. Atty. Gen., Ernest P. Goodman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
Before DUNIWAY and ELY, Circuit Judges, and CROCKER, District Judge.*
This is an appeal from a dismissal of the action in the district court on the grounds that a federal court cannot act where there exists a plain, speedy and efficient state remedy.
The pertinent facts are as follows: In April 1969, appellant, under penalty of perjury, filed a personal income tax return for 1968 indicating $90.00 due in state taxes. No payment was made. On two occasions the Franchise Tax Board (Board) notified appellant of the delinquency. The latter notice requested that he appear before the Board to arrange payment. Appellant did not respond to the notices.
In October 1969, the Board issued an order to withhold tax, pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code § 18807, upon appellant's employer who paid over appellant's entire wages of $29.48 for the week ending October 11, 1969.
Appellant filed this action on behalf of himself, and all persons similarly situated, for an injunction, contending that section 18807 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to them in that it allows the taking of property without due process of law and violates the Equal Protection Clause as it discriminates against appellant and others in a similar situation.
The case before us is very similar to Aronoff v. Franchise Tax Board of State of California, 348 F.2d 9, 11 (9th Cir.1965), wherein the court affirmed a dismissal on the grounds that the state refund procedure afforded a plain, speedy and efficient remedy. There the court stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franchise Tax Board of California v. United States Postal Service
...(1890); Hager v. Reclamation District No. 108, 111 U.S. 701, 710, 4 S.Ct. 663, 668, 28 L.Ed. 569 (1884). See also Randall v. Franchise Tax Board, 453 F.2d 381 (CA9 1971); Greene v. Franchise Tax Board, 27 Cal.App.3d 38, 44, 103 Cal.Rptr. 483, 486-487 19 The Postal Service argues that there ......
-
Newton v. Poindexter, Civ.S-83-980
...Industries—EMI, Inc. v. Bennett, 681 F.2d 1107 (9th Cir.1982); Wood v. Sargeant, 694 F.2d 1159 (9th Cir.1982); Randall v. Franchise Tax Board, 453 F.2d 381 (9th Cir.1971); Aronoff v. Franchise Tax Board, 348 F.2d 9 (9th Cir.1965). The cases relied upon by the defendant, however, did not inv......
-
Wood v. Sargeant
...626, 630; Aronoff v. Franchise Tax Board of the State of California, 9 Cir., 1965, 348 F.2d 9, 11; Randall v. Franchise Tax Board of the State of California, 9 Cir., 1971, 453 F.2d 381, 382; Mandel v. Hutchinson, 9 Cir., 1974, 494 F.2d 364, 366-367; Kelly v. Springett, 9 Cir., 1975, 527 F.2......
-
Bills v. State, Dept. of Revenue and Taxation
...affording the taxpayer a reasonable opportunity to be heard concerning the alleged deficiency. See Randall v. Franchise Tax Board of the State of California, 453 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1971); Greene v. Franchise Tax Board, 103 Cal.Rptr. 483, 27 Cal.App.2d 38 (1972). See also State Tax Commissio......