Ryan v. Salinas Union High School District CA6

Filed 3/4/26 Ryan v. Salinas Union High School District CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

MICHAEL RYAN: HOLDEN H053015 KLINGLER, (Monterey County Super. Ct. No. 22CV002775) Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff and appellant Michael Ryan: Holden Klingler appeals from the trial court’s August 2024 order denying his non-statutory motion to vacate the judgment in this case. Acknowledging that such motions are generally non-appealable, Mr. Klingler contends the judgment in this action is void, which would make the August 2024 order appealable. We conclude Mr. Klingler has not met his burden to show that the judgment is void. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal because the August 2024 order is not appealable. I. BACKGROUND1 In September 2022, Mr. Klingler filed a verified “Petition For Relief.” He alleges that he contracted with defendant and respondent Salinas Union High School District (the

1 This appeal arises from the denial of a motion to vacate a judgment following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. Accordingly, we take the facts from

District) in June 2018 to become a mathematics teacher for the District. Initially, he refused to submit a Social Security card, but later did so after the assistant superintendent of personnel threatened to withdraw the job offer unless Mr. Klingler submitted various tax-related federal forms. Mr. Klingler alleges that on the original forms he filled out, he wrote “[t]his form does not apply to me,” which, according to him, shows he did not request that his pay be subject to withholding. Mr. Klingler further alleges that he does not believe any language exists in the federal Internal Revenue Code or the Revenue and Taxation Code that subjects him to taxation. He first attempted to address the issue of taxation with the federal Internal Revenue Service and the Franchise Tax Board, but then decided to raise the issue with the District. Mr. Klingler provided the District with a “Notice of Misapplication.” The District responded by asserting that Mr. Klingler’s contract is subject to state and federal income taxation. The District has continued to withhold some of Mr. Klingler’s pay for state and federal taxes. Mr. Klingler’s petition sets forth two separate “primary right theory” claims. In January 2023, the District filed a demurrer to both claims in the verified petition, arguing these claims did not state sufficient facts to constitute a valid cause of action. The District argued that Mr. Klingler’s claims were statutorily barred under federal and California law, and that the District was immune from liability. The District asserted that Mr. Klingler’s pay is subject to taxes and that the District is legally required to withhold those taxes. Mr. Klingler opposed the demurrer, arguing that the District failed to establish a duty to withhold and report taxes because it did not “state a bona fide federal income tax that subjects [his] contract to federal income tax law.”