DOUGLAS ALAN GREENBERG VS. ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD OF THE CITY AND COUNTY ET AL

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CPF23518413 - July 18, 2025 Hearing date: July 18, 2025 Case number: CPF23518413 Case title: DOUGLAS ALAN GREENBERG VS. ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD OF THE CITY AND COUNTY ET AL Case Number: | | CPF23518413 | Case Title: | | DOUGLAS ALAN GREENBERG VS. ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD OF THE CITY AND COUNTY ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-07-18 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEMURRER to Amended PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/ PROHIBITION/ CERTIFICATION | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion calendar for July 18, 2025, line 1.

Respondent's Demurrer to Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate is OVERRULED.

The Court has twice ruled that Petitioner may seek a writ of mandate and a refund simultaneously. The Court's May 24, 2024 ruling stated "Based on the authority provided by the parties, when a petitioner challenged the assessment appeals board's methodology as erroneous, the petitioner was also seeking a refund of taxes paid. (Main & Von Karman Associates v. County of Orange (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 337, 339, 342.)" Subsequently, the Court's September 19, 2024 order stated that "the Court previously ruled the only procedural mechanism to seek the requested relief by the Petitioner [] has to be made in conjunction with a request for refund."

In short, Petitioner's writ is appropriate because it prays for a rehearing following the Board's errors of law, as opposed to lodging a challenge on the merits that would require the Board to make a specific assessment. The latter writ would be considered an impermissible tax refund action under Jefferson because there is another adequate remedy at law. (Compare William Jefferson & Co., Inc. v. Orange County Assessment Appeals Bd. No. 2 (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1, 12-13, and Little v. Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Bds. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 915, 919-922, with Von Karman, 23 Cal.App.4th at 337, 342-344).

Additionally, the statute of limitations began running on October 2, 2023. That was implicit in the Court's September 19, 2024 order, which held that "Petitioner sufficiently stated facts showing that the claim related to tax year 2020 was timely made after the issuance of the findings of fact." Nothing in the language of the statute requires the Petitioner to expressly toll the finality of the decision. It states that finding of fact need to be requested and "if so requested" the determination shall become final. The placement of the phrase "if so requested" makes it applicable to the phrase "findings of fact are requested" provision and not to the phrase "the determination shall become final upon issues of the finding of fact."

=(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tent ative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear. | |