Lauckhart v. County of Yolo CA3

Filed 3/8/22 Lauckhart v. County of Yolo CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo)

---- RICHARD LAUCKHART,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C092354

v. (Super. Ct. No. CVPT-19- 2714) COUNTY OF YOLO,

Defendant and Respondent.

Richard Lauckhart filed a petition for writ of mandate against Yolo County, asserting that the levy of a water fee violated Proposition 218 because it was not presented to the voters. After taking judicial notice of official documents, the trial court granted Yolo County’s demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment of dismissal. Lauckhart now contends the trial court erred in (1) taking judicial notice of facts contained in the official documents, and (2) denying leave to amend the petition. 1 Finding no error, we will affirm the judgment.

1 The County argues Lauckhart’s opening brief violated California Rules of Court, rule 8.204 because it did not contain a statement of appealability and did not summarize the significant facts. While it is true the opening brief lacks a statement of appealability, there is no reasonable argument against appealability in this case. Furthermore, the County’s complaint about Lauckhart’s failure to summarize facts can be traced to Lauckhart’s contention the trial court improperly relied on facts contained in judicially

1

STANDARD OF REVIEW “ ‘It is well established that a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the [petition]. [Citations.] On appeal from a dismissal entered after an order sustaining a demurrer, we review the order de novo, exercising our independent judgment about whether the [petition] states a cause of action as a matter of law. [Citations.] We give the [petition] a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and viewing its parts in context. [Citations.] We deem to be true all material facts that were properly pled. [Citation.] We must also accept as true those facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. [Citation.] We may also consider matters that may be judicially noticed, but do not accept contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (Vanacore & Associates, Inc. v. Rosenfeld (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 438, 445-446.) BACKGROUND LAW AND FACTS Section 6, subdivision (b)(4) of article XIII D of the California Constitution (section 6(b)(4)), adopted by voters as part of Proposition 218 in 1996, restricts an agency’s authority to impose fees without submitting the fee to the voters. (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Roseville (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 637, 640-642.) Section 6(b)(4) provides: “No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Fees or charges based on potential or future use of a service are not permitted.” In Capistrano Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. City of San Juan Capistrano (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1493 (Capistrano)), the Court of Appeal considered whether the cost of producing recycled water could be apportioned to all water customers, even those without