Court Opinion

ID: 9623311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:31:13.735099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:28.249005
License: Public Domain

BIRD, C. J.,
Dissenting.—Today, this court holds that a city which enjoys a virtual monopoly in supplying a vital service (water) breached no duty when it cut off a homeowner’s paid-for water supply for nonpayment of a garbage collection bill. I cannot agree.
Under the Constitution, a person is denied due process of law when a “governmental entity vested with broad administrative powers acts in an arbitrary manner so as to affect capriciously the property or property rights of persons subjected to its administrative controls.” (Walsh v. Kirby (1974) 13 Cal.3d 95, 105-106 [118 Cal.Rptr. 1, 529 P.2d 33]; see also U. S. Const., 14th Amend., § 1; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, subd. (a).)
Although the majority state they recognize that due process may be violated when a statute “is unduly harsh or exacts a penalty which may be deemed oppressive in light of the legitimate objectives sought to be achieved. ..” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 893), they quickly conclude that the present ordinance does not impose such a penalty. Again, I cannot agree.
Here, the ordinance requires that “If any person shall fail or refuse to pay the lawful charges. . .for any municipal services, the water service to the premises, regardless of tenancy, shall be shut off.” (San *896Bruno City Code, § 14-1.) It should first be noted that this provision operates without regard to the availability of other, less draconian, means of collection. In this case, the city had obtained judgments for amounts due from plaintiff yet made no showing of attempts to enforce those judgments. Overlooked by the majority is the fact that the city required a “service deposit” before implementing its contract with plaintiff. However, there is no indication that this deposit whs insufficient to cover the unpaid garbage bills. The inescapable conclusion is that the city intended to exact a penalty by turning off plaintiff’s water.
The arbitrary nature of the ordinance is further shown by the fact that water, clearly a necessity of life, is singled out for termination no matter which municipal service has not been paid. Further, the termination of water service is not interrelated nor the billing “unified” with other services. The ledger supplied by the city shows separate columns of amounts charged for garbage, sewer, and water services. Moreover, the city in filing suit for the back garbage charges implicitly admitted the severability of those charges from other items of the bill.
It is only to state the obvious to note that a person cannot exist without water. This court has a history of protecting necessities of life from arbitrary governmental interference. Even a prejudgment attachment scheme which affords notice of hearing and other procedural guarantees must exempt necessities from such attachment as an initial matter. (See Random v. Appellate Department (1971) 5 Cal.3d 536, 563 [96 Cal. Rptr. 709, 488 P.2d 13]; see also 11 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. (1973) p. 724.)
A “law must not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious but must have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained.” (Gray v. Whitmore (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 1, 21 [94 Cal.Rptr. 904].) From the record before this court, the present ordinance fails to meet that test. Since the city has not shown that “there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that [it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c), the judgment of the trial court should be reversed.
Newman, J., concurred.