Opinion
E064953
06-01-2017
CITY OF EASTVALE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Law Office of Brissman & Nemat and Mona M. Nemat; Pierce Law Firm and Bradley D. Pierce for Plaintiff and Appellant. Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, James E. Brown, Assistant County Counsel, and Kelly A. Moran, Deputy County Counsel; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Timothy T. Coates and Alison M. Turner, for Defendant and Respondent County of Riverside. Richards, Watson & Gershon, B. Tilden Kim and Patrick D. Skahan, for Defendant and Respondent City of Jurupa Valley. Rutan & Tucker, Ajit Singh Thind and Jeffrey Melching, for Defendant and Respondent City of Meniffee. Thomas D. Jex, City Attorney; Burke, Williams & Sorensen and Amy E. Hoyt, for Defendant and Respondent City of Wildomar. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Douglas J. Woods, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Marc A. LeForestier and Ryan Marcroft, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent California Department of Finance.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. RIC1513629) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Daniel A. Ottolia, Judge. Dismissed with prejudice. Law Office of Brissman & Nemat and Mona M. Nemat; Pierce Law Firm and Bradley D. Pierce for Plaintiff and Appellant. Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, James E. Brown, Assistant County Counsel, and Kelly A. Moran, Deputy County Counsel; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Timothy T. Coates and Alison M. Turner, for Defendant and Respondent County of Riverside. Richards, Watson & Gershon, B. Tilden Kim and Patrick D. Skahan, for Defendant and Respondent City of Jurupa Valley. Rutan & Tucker, Ajit Singh Thind and Jeffrey Melching, for Defendant and Respondent City of Meniffee. Thomas D. Jex, City Attorney; Burke, Williams & Sorensen and Amy E. Hoyt, for Defendant and Respondent City of Wildomar. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Douglas J. Woods, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Marc A. LeForestier and Ryan Marcroft, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent California Department of Finance.
This dispute relates to a fiscal relief mechanism for four cities in Riverside County that was included in a 2015 state budget bill, specifically, section 28 of Senate Bill No. 107 (2015 Reg. Sess.) (Sen. Bill 107, § 28), which became law on September 22, 2015. (Stats. 2015, ch. 325, §§ 28, 31) Three of the cities—defendants and respondents City of Jurupa Valley (Jurupa Valley), City of Menifee (Menifee), and City of Wildomar (Wildomar)—had certain debts forgiven by defendant and respondent County of Riverside (the County) pursuant to that mechanism. The fourth, plaintiff and appellant City of Eastvale (Eastvale), did not.
Eastvale seeks to compel the County to forgive certain debts. Eastvale appeals from the trial court's order denying its petition for a writ of mandate and entry of judgment in favor of defendants. The County, Jurupa Valley, Menifee, and Wildomar ask that we dismiss the appeal as moot or, in the alternative, affirm the trial court's ruling. Defendant and respondent California Department of Finance (DOF) asks that we dismiss the appeal as to it because Eastvale has sought no relief as to DOF, so there is no "live controversy involving DOF in this proceeding"; in the alternative, DOF asks that we affirm the trial court's ruling.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Changes to the allocation of state funds from vehicle license fees had a disproportionate impact on the four cities that are party to the present lawsuit because of their relatively recent dates of incorporation. The legislative history of section 28 indicates that it was intended to provide "fiscal relief for specified cities in Riverside County incorporated after 2004—Jurupa Valley, Menifee, Wildomar and Eastvale—which experienced fiscal stress due to lost revenue" from those changes. (Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, analysis of Sen. Bill No. 107 (2015), par. 32)
The mechanism adopted by the Legislature to provide such fiscal relief involved the distribution of state funds for the benefit of the County, in exchange for the County forgiving debts of the cites. (Stats. 2015, ch. 325, § 28.) More specifically, the sum of $23,750,000 was appropriated from the state's General Fund to be provided to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire), essentially as a credit to the County's account, contingent on the County in turn entering into agreements forgiving amounts owed to the County by the cities "for services rendered to the cities between the respective dates of their incorporation, and June 30, 2015." (Stats. 2015, ch. 325, § 28) Section 28 charges DOF with verifying the amounts owed to the County by the four cities, prior to disbursement of the appropriated funds. (§ 28, subd. (b)(1).)
Sometimes referred to as section 28 or § 28.
The full text of section 28 is as follows:
"(a) For the 201516 fiscal year, the sum of twentythree million seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($23,750,000) is hereby appropriated from the General Fund to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Provision of these funds to the department shall be contingent on the County of Riverside agreeing to forgive amounts owed to it by the Cities of Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Menifee, and Wildomar for services rendered to the cities between the respective dates of their incorporation, and June 30, 2015. The county's agreement to forgive these funds shall be forwarded to the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and to the Director of Finance no later than December 1, 2015. The county's agreement shall be accompanied by a summary of the actual amount owed to the county by each of the cities for the period between the date of their incorporation and June 30, 2015. The agreement reflects a valid public purpose which benefits the cities, the county, and its citizens.
"(b) Within 30 days of receiving notification from the county as specified in subdivision (a), the Director of Finance shall do all of the following:
"(1) Verify the accuracy of the county's summary of the amounts owed to it by the four cities.
"(2) Direct the Controller to transmit to the department, from the appropriation provided in subdivision (a), an amount that corresponds to the amount that the Director of Finance has verified pursuant to paragraph (1).
"(3) Initiate steps to reduce the amount of reimbursements provided to the department in the Budget Act of 2015 by an amount that corresponds to the amount provided to the department pursuant to paragraph (2)." (Sen. Bill 107, § 28)
DOF was directly involved in the conception and passage of section 28, in addition to having duties as a part of its implementation. DOF proposed language for a budget trailer bill that was ultimately incorporated into Senate Bill 107 as section 28. The amount of the appropriation contemplated in section 28 was derived from information provided to DOF by the County in March 2015; the four cities collectively owed the County, at that time, $23,769,329. All of this debt, however, was from Jurupa Valley, Menifee, and Wildomar; Eastvale was not indebted to the County as of March 2015.
Eastvale city officials learned of the then-pending legislation in May 2015. In a letter dated July 29, 2015, Eastvale provided the County a letter and supporting documentation, showing debt to the County for services rendered through June 30, 2015, in the amount of $4,408,565.02. This entire sum reflected invoices from 2015. In an August 2015 meeting with County officials, representatives of Eastvale explained that the city had stopped paying bills to the County in order to accumulate debt that then would be eradicated by the pending legislation. The Eastvale representatives assured the County, however, that money was set aside to pay the outstanding bills, if Senate Bill 107 did not become law.
Senate Bill 107 became law on September 22, 2015, without any additional appropriation relating to Eastvale's newly-reported debt to the County. Nevertheless, on October 1, 2015, Eastvale requested that the County forgive $5,013,731.32 of its "current debt for services provided to the City" pursuant to section 28. After consultation with DOF, the County declined to enter into any debt forgiveness agreement with Eastvale. The County did enter into agreements with Jurupa Valley, Menifee, and Wildomar to forgive a total of $23,660,289 of those cities' debt. These three agreements were submitted to DOF for verification of the amounts owed, pursuant to section 28, on November 19, 2015.
The County agreed to forgive $21,325,467 owed by Jurupa Valley, $1,147,724 owed by Menifee, and $1,187,098 owed by Wildomar. --------
On November 18, 2015, Eastvale filed a combined petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, contending that under section 28, the County was required to "either forgive the debt of all four cities, or none at all." Only the County was included as a party. Eastvale sought a temporary restraining order prohibiting the County from submitting any debt forgiveness agreements to DOF pursuant to section 28, and requiring it to withdraw any previously submitted agreements. On November 20, 2015, the trial court denied Eastvale's application for a temporary restraining order, ordered Menifee, Wildomar, and Jurupa Valley, as well as DOF, to be joined as parties (which they were, on November 23, 2015), and set an expedited briefing schedule on Eastvale's application for alternative writ.
On November 30, 2015, the trial court denied Eastvale's application for alternative writ and on December 4, 2015, it granted judgment in favor of defendants. Eastvale sought writ relief in this court; we summarily denied the request, and dissolved the temporary stay that we had put in place while we considered it, on January 19, 2016. Subsequently, having verified the accuracy of the County's summary of the amount owed to it, DOF directed the State Controller to transmit $23,660,289 from the General Fund to Cal Fire pursuant to section 28.
II. REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
After this case was fully briefed, a tentative opinion drafted and mailed to the parties, and oral argument scheduled for June 6, 2017, the parties advised the court that they had agreed to dismiss the appeal. A Stipulation of the Parties Requesting Dismissal of Appeal was filed May 18, 2017.
An appellant may not dismiss an appeal as a matter of right. (Huschke v. Slater (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1160 [imposing $6,000 sanctions on attorney for unreasonable delay in notifying appellate court that parties had settled and dismissed the underlying case].) Rather, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.244(c)(2), "On receipt of a request or stipulation to dismiss, the court may dismiss the appeal and direct immediate issuance of the remittitur." (Italics added.) Thus, dismissal is discretionary. Here, because the resolution of this case is fact specific, we grant the request.
III. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MCKINSTER
Acting P. J. We concur: MILLER
J. FIELDS
J.