Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01679/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01679-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM SOLORAZANO, et al., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

THE CITY OF FRESNO, JERRY )

DYER, and DOES 1 through 100, )

inclusive, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

1:09-CV-1679 AWI DLB

ORDER REMANDING FOR LACK

OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION 

(Documents #13 & #14)

BACKGROUND

On August 3, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of

California, County of Fresno. On September 22, 2009, Defendants removed the complaint to the

Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, because the complaint contains a claim brought

under the Due Process Clause of the Federal Constitution. Defendants contend this court has

federal question jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

On January 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (“complaint”). The complaint

contains the following causes of action: (1) Violation of California Vehicle Code § 12110; (2)

Violation of California Government Code 53720; (3) Violation of California Constitution,

Article 13C, § 2; (4) Violation of the due process rights found in California Constitution Article

1, § 7(A) and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States’s Constitution; and (5) An

injunction enjoining the expenditure of funds obtained by collecting illegal taxes.

Case 1:09-cv-01679-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On February 12, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, a

motion for a more definite statement, and a motion to strike portions of the complaint. On

March 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On March 15, 2010, Defendants filed a reply.

LEGAL STANDARD

“If at any time prior to judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A district court has “a duty to

establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised

the issue or not.” United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th

Cir. 2004). In other words, a district court may remand a removed case sua sponte if it

determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Maynez v. Garza, 2010 WL

1853845, *2 (E.D.Cal. 2010); Knutson v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 358 F. Supp. 2d 983, 990 (D.

Nev. 2005); Tortola Restaurants, L.P. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 987 F. Supp. 1186, 1188 (N.D.

Cal. 1997).

ALLEGED FACTS

. The complaint alleges that in or around January, 2004, the City of Fresno (“City”), in an

attempt to increase revenues, established a “Tow program”. The complaint alleges that the

program requires any tow operator who is referred business by the City to be part of a “non

exclusive franchise agreement” requiring the tow operator to pay the City $40.00 for every vehicle

towed at the request of the City. The complaint alleges that the City’s windfall of nearly

$1,000,000.00 dollars on an annual basis, totaling approximately $5,500,000.00 since the

inception of the Tow Program in 2004, has been generated unlawfully in a blatant and direct

violation of California Vehicle Code Section 12110(b) and Proposition 218. The complaint

alleges the statutory and constitutional provisions created as a result of the passage of Proposition

218, including, but not limited to, California Constitution Article 13C, § 2, and Government Code

§ 53720 et seq. clearly specify that fees collected in excess of the actual costs are considered

“taxes.” Because it is not possible that the cost of the “Tow Program” is $40.00 per tow, the

2

Case 1:09-cv-01679-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

complaint alleges the $40.00 fee is a special tax, which the City has failed to properly institute. 

The complaint alleges that because the fees are actually taxes, strict voting requirements were

required to be adhered to, which the City failed to do.

DISCUSSION

This court lacks jurisdiction over this action. The Tax Injunction Act (“TIA”), 28 U.S.C.

§ 1341, provides:

The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or

collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy

may be had in the courts of such State.

The TIA imposes a jurisdictional limitation on federal courts. Arizona Life Coalition Inc. v.

Stanton, 515 F.3d 956, 962 (9 Cir. 2008). The Supreme Court has interpreted the TIA as a th

“broad jurisdictional barrier.” Arkansas v. Farm Credit Servs. of Cent. Ark., 520 U.S. 821, 825

(1997). The TIA bars taxpayers from challenging the validity of a state tax in federal court where

there is an adequate remedy available in state court. McIlwain v. Oregon Dept. of Revenue, 334

Fed.Appx. 99, 100, 2009 WL 3248754, 1 (9 Cir. 2009). Federal courts must abstain from suits th

that would intrude into the administration of state taxation. Patel v. City of San Bernardino, 310

F.3d 1138, 1140 (9 Cir. 2002). The dispositive question in determining whether the TIA’s th

jurisdictional bar applies is whether the plaintiff's action, if successful, would reduce the flow of

state tax revenue. Qwest Corp. v. City of Surprise, 434 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9 Cir. 2006); May th

Trucking Co. v. Or. Dep't of Transp., 388 F.3d 1261, 1267 (9 Cir. 2004). th

By its own allegations, this action concerns alleged improper taxes by the City. In this

action, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have taxed Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in

violation of the Federal Due Process Clause, the California Constitution, and California Law. 

Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting the City from collecting taxes as part of the City’s Tow

Program, and Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of himself and the alleged class in the amount of

$40.00 for every vehicle towed at the request of the City beginning with the inception of the Tow

Program. If Plaintiff’s access is successful, it will reduce the flow of revenue to the City. The

3

Case 1:09-cv-01679-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 06/03/10 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TIA bars this court’s jurisdiction over this action.

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that this action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of

the State of California, County of Fresno because this court lacks jurisdiction over the action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1341.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 1:09-cv-01679-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 06/03/10 Page 4 of 4