Milpitas Cab Co. et al v. Employment Development Department of the State of California

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, Re: Dkt. No. 13 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MILPITAS CAB CO., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No. 15-cv-00730-NC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

v.

14

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,

15

Re: Dkt. No. 13

Defendant.

16

Milpitas Cab and City Cab sued the Employment Development Department of the

17

State of California (“EDD”), alleging that EDD deprived plaintiffs of their due process

18

rights by assessing $1,190,052 in taxes. EDD moves to dismiss the complaint because the

19

Tax Injunction Act prohibits district courts from restraining state tax collection where the

20

state provides a plain, speedy and efficient remedy for taxpayers to challenge the tax.

21

Plaintiffs argue that the Williams Packing exception permits this Court to retain

22

jurisdiction because they allege that the government could not ultimately prevail on the

23

merits, and plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury if the Court does not enjoin the tax

24

collection. Because the Court finds that the Williams Packing exception does not apply

25

and that California has a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for taxpayers, the Court is

26

without jurisdiction to hear the case and GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss.

27
28
Case No. 15-cv-00730-NC

1

I.

Plaintiffs are Milpitas Cab and City Cab, two dissolved taxi cab companies. Compl.

2
3
4
5
6

¶ 5. The defendant EDD administers the State of California’s unemployment insurance
system pursuant to the California Unemployment Insurance Code (“the Code”). Compl.
¶ 7. Specifically, EDD has legal authority to assess and collect taxes from employers that
do business in the State of California. Compl. ¶ 7.
On December 27, 2007, EDD issued an assessment of $690,975 against Milpitas

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

BACKGROUND

Cab and $499,077 against City Cab due in taxes to EDD. Compl. ¶ 8. Plaintiffs timely
filed petitions for reassessment, primarily asserting that plaintiffs did not pay “wages” as
defined by California regulations, and that drivers were not employees. Compl. ¶ 9-10.
On November 30, 2011, EDD commenced administrative hearings. Compl. ¶ 10.
Plaintiffs allege that at the administrative hearing, they presented a closing brief that
contained “extensive evidence and legal precedent to support its position that plaintiffs did
not pay ‘wages.’” Id. On August 23, 2013, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied
plaintiffs’ petitions. Compl. ¶ 11. The decisions were fifty-eight pages long, and plaintiffs
allege that most of it was “dedicated to destroying [plaintiffs’] credibility,” and they were
therefore prevented from presenting evidence when they had the burden of proof. Compl.
¶ 11.
The ALJ’s decision provides, “The Department’s estimated wage calculations and
estimated calculations of the number of drivers and other workers were all reasonably
made by the Department based upon the information which was reasonably available and
in the Department’s possession.” Compl. ¶ 12. However, the ALJ lowered the assessment
by an amount not indicated in the complaint. Compl. ¶ 11. Plaintiffs appealed to the
California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, which upheld the ALJ’s decision.
Compl. ¶ 13.
Plaintiffs allege that EDD violated its right of due process by: (1) making a decision
on the issue of “wages” that was not supported by “substantial evidence”; (2) the ALJ
conducted the hearings in a manner that resulted in an “abuse of power”; (3) the ALJ did
Case No. 15-cv-00730-NC

2

1

not conduct a fair hearing; and (4) the ALJ exhibited disdain and disrespect toward

2

plaintiffs during the administrative hearings. Compl. ¶ 14. Plaintiffs further contend that

3

“under no circumstances can the EDD prevail.” Compl. ¶ 17. Lastly, plaintiffs claim they

4

have no adequate remedy at law to address or rectify the procedural due process violations

5

alleged, and that unless an injunction is granted plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury.

6

Compl. ¶ 16.
On February 17, 2015, plaintiffs sued EDD in the present action under 42 U.S.C.

7
8

§ 1983 alleging a violation of their due process rights. Compl. ¶ 1. Plaintiffs seek to

9

enjoin EDD from enforcing its tax assessments. Compl. at 6. Plaintiffs also ask this Court
to remand to EDD with instructions to decide the issue of “wages” on the basis of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

substantial evidence, and conduct new hearings to the extent that the Court determines

12

EDD’s due process violations invalidated the proceedings. Compl. at 5. Plaintiffs and

13

defendant consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Dkt. Nos. 9, 12.

14

II.

15

DISCUSSION
The Tax Injunction Act (TIA) prohibits district courts from restraining the

16

“assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and

17

efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1341 (2013). EDD

18

argues that the TIA bars this suit from federal district court jurisdiction because California

19

provides a plain, speedy, and efficient process for challenging taxes. Plaintiffs, however,

20

assert that the state tax assessment is enjoinable under the exception set forth in Enochs v.

21

Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1 (1962). There, the Supreme Court held

22

that in order to seek injunction of the assessment or collection of taxes, the taxpayer must

23

demonstrate that (1) under the most liberal view of the law and facts, the government

24

cannot ultimately prevail on the merits; and (2) taxpayers will suffer irreparable injury

25

without relief. Id. at 7.

26
27

In this order, the Court will first address California’s tax remedies, then will
examine plaintiffs’ proposed exception to the TIA provided in Williams Packing.

28
Case No. 15-cv-00730-NC

3

1

A.

Legal Standard

“It is a fundamental principle that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
2
The limits upon federal jurisdiction, whether imposed by the Constitution or by Congress,
3
must be neither disregarded nor evaded.” Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S.
4
365, 374 (1978). Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is governed by Federal
5
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). A Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal is appropriate when the
6
complaint fails to establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Roberts
7
v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987). The court presumes a lack of
8
jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise. Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of
9
the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). “A party invoking the
10
federal court’s jurisdiction has the burden of proving the actual existence of subject matter
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

jurisdiction.” Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996). The court must
12
determine whether a lack of federal jurisdiction appears from the face of the complaint
13
itself. Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. Gen. Tel. Elec., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979).
14
Leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15
15(a). The Court considers four factors in deciding whether to grant leave to amend: “bad
16
faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and the futility of amendment.”
17
Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir. 1994). Futility of amendment can, by itself,
18
justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend. Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845
19
(9th Cir. 1995).
20
21

B.

The Tax Injunction Act

The TIA prohibits district courts from restraining the “assessment, levy or
22
collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be
23
had in the courts of such State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1341 (2013). The TIA closely parallels the
24
Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), which bars courts from maintaining suits brought “for the
25
purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax” assessed by the federal
26
government. 26 U.S.C. § 7421 (2011). The purpose of the AIA is to “permit[] the United
27
States to assess and collect taxes alleged to be due without judicial intervention, and to
28
Case No. 15-cv-00730-NC

4

1

require that the legal right to the disputed sums be determined in a suit for refund.”

2

Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7 (1962). Similarly, the TIA

3

protects state tax collections from federal court review. Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 104

4

(2004).

5

The TIA “has its roots in equity practice, in principles of federalism, and in

6

recognition of the imperative need of a State to administer its own fiscal operations.” Tully

7

v. Griffin, 429 U.S. 68, 73 (1976). Its primary purpose is to prevent federal court intrusion

8

into state tax collection, an area which deserves “the utmost comity to state law and

9

procedure.” Jerron West, Inc. v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 129 F.3d 1334, 1338 (9th
Cir. 1997). Specifically, the TIA was shaped with two “state-revenue-protective”

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

objectives: (1) to eliminate disparities between taxpayers who have the means to seek

12

injunctive relief in federal court, and those who must resort to existing state procedure–

13

which is generally to pay first and litigate later; and (2) to prevent taxpayers from using a

14

federal injunction to withhold large sums, and thus interfere with state finances. Hibbs,

15

542 U.S. at 104.

16
17

1.

California provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy

So long as the state provides a “plain, speedy and efficient” remedy for taxpayers,

18

the TIA prohibits the district court from enjoining state tax administration. Rosewell v.

19

LaSalle Nat’l. Bank, 450 U.S. 503, 512 (1981). The Supreme Court has interpreted the

20

phrase “plain, speedy and efficient” to describe the procedural criteria required of the state

21

for taxpayers to challenge their tax liability. Id. In other words, procedures are plain,

22

speedy, and efficient if the taxpayer has a “full hearing and judicial determination.” Id.

23

The Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have held that California’s refund

24

procedures constitute a plain, speedy and efficient remedy for taxpayers. See, e.g., Cal. v.

25

Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393, 417 (1982); Franchise Tax Bd. v. Alcan

26

Aluminium, 493 U.S. 331, 338 (1990); Jerron West, 129 F.3d at 1339. The California

27

Unemployment Insurance Code (“the Code”) establishes the refund procedures available to

28

taxpayers to challenge their California employment tax liability through state
Case No. 15-cv-00730-NC

5

1

administrative and judicial proceedings. Cal. Unemp. Ins. Code §§ 1176-1185; Grace

2

Brethren Church, 457 U.S. at 413-14. Fundamentally, a party may not seek judicial

3

review of a tax in advance of paying the tax. West Hollywood Cmty. Health & Fitness Ctr.

4

v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 232 Cal. App. 4th 12 (2014).

5

The California Court of Appeal outlined the administrative process in the

6

unemployment insurance arena in Merch. Concept Group, Inc. v. Cal. Unemp. Ins.

7

Appeals Bd., 181 Cal. App. 4th 1274, 1281 (2010). To challenge a tax, a party must first

8

file a claim for refund or credit. Cal. Unemp. Ins. Code §§ 1178(a), 1241(a). If the

9

director of EDD denies the claim for refund or credit, the claimant may file a petition for
review with an administrative law judge. Id. §§ 1180, 1222. The administrative law judge

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

will then review the matter and render a decision or order. Id. § 1223. The parties may

12

file an appeal to the Board, and the Appeals Board will issue its decision. Id. §§ 1224,

13

1241. Once taxpayers have sought and been denied a refund, they may file an action in

14

California Superior Court to challenge the validity of the tax and seek a refund for taxes

15

paid. Id. § 1241; Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. at 413-14.

16

Even when taxpayers claim a violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the TIA precludes

17

the Court from adjudicating the matter. Hawaiian Tel. Co. v. State Dep’t. of Labor &

18

Indus. Relations, 691 F. 2d 905, 910 (9th Cir. 1982). In Jerron West, Inc. v. State of Cal.

19

State Bd. of Equalization, plaintiffs filed suit in district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to

20

enjoin the state from commencing administrative hearings on their sales tax liability. The

21

plaintiffs argued that their action was not barred by the TIA because they were merely

22

seeking to enjoin the Board’s unconstitutional conduct. Id. at 1337. The Ninth Circuit

23

affirmed the district court’s dismissal because the taxpayers sought relief which would

24

interfere with the state collection of taxes, and California had an adequate remedy to

25

address their claim. Id. at 1337-9. In California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S.

26

at 415, a number of churches and religious schools brought suit in federal district court to

27

enjoin California tax authorities from collecting tax records and unemployment tax from

28

plaintiffs because the taxes allegedly violated their First Amendment rights. The Supreme
Case No. 15-cv-00730-NC

6

1

Court held that the TIA barred the district court’s jurisdiction to issue declaratory and

2

injunctive relief because California provides a “plain, speedy and efficient” remedy, even

3

though the taxpayers alleged federal claims. Id. at 415-16.

4

Here, plaintiffs seek to enjoin EDD from taking action to enforce its tax

5

assessments against them. Compl. at 6. Plaintiffs do not allege that California lacks a

6

plain, speedy and efficient process. Plaintiffs contend that the “administrative process is

7

complete and there are no further administrative procedures” available. Compl. ¶ 13. On

8

the contrary, plaintiffs may pursue their challenge by paying the assessed taxes and

9

seeking a refund through the state channels described above. Cal. Unemp. Ins. Code

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

§§ 1176-1185, 1241.
2.

The Williams Packing Exception Does Not Apply

12

In Williams Packing, the Supreme Court held that in order to seek injunction of the

13

assessment or collection of federal taxes, the taxpayer must demonstrate that (1) under the

14

most liberal view of the law and facts, the government cannot ultimately prevail on the

15

merits; and (2) taxpayers will suffer irreparable injury without relief. Williams Packing,

16

370 U.S. 1 at 7. Although the Supreme Court made note of the “comparable” TIA in

17

Williams Packing, the holding and facts in that case pertained to federal court interference

18

with federal taxes under a different statute, the AIA. See Williams Packing, 370 U.S. 1

19

at 7; see also Hibbs, 542 U.S. at 104.

20

Plaintiffs ask this Court to apply the Williams Packing exception to the TIA, where

21

the TIA would otherwise bar federal court jurisdiction from interfering with state

22

collection of taxes. However, “a party invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction has the

23

burden of proving the actual existence of subject matter jurisdiction.” Thompson, 99 F.3d

24

at 353. Plaintiffs assert that the California Supreme Court adopted the Williams Packing

25

exception to the California Constitutional prohibition on court interference with state

26

collection of taxes, citing Western Oil & Gas Assn. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 44 Cal.

27

3d 208 (1987), and Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian, 48 Cal. 3d 805 (1989).

28

In Western Oil, plaintiffs brought suit in state court asserting an unlawful search and
Case No. 15-cv-00730-NC

7

seizure and to prevent the State Board of Equalization from compelling disclosure of their

2

land use because the underlying tax assessment was invalid. Western Oil & Gas Assn., 48

3

Cal. 3d at 211. There, the California Supreme Court held that the appropriate standard for

4

state judicial intervention in state tax matters where federal constitutional issues arise was

5

“that invoked under the similar anti-injunction statute for federal tax matters.” Id. at 214.

6

In Calfarm, plaintiffs petitioned the court for a writ of mandate declaring an elector-

7

enacted initiative unconstitutional on its face. Calfarm Ins. Co., 48 Cal. 3d at 812. There,

8

the California Supreme Court refused to extend the Williams Packing exception to

9

plaintiffs raising a state constitutional issue in state court. Id. at 838-40. The cases

10

plaintiffs cite illustrate that the Williams Packing exception applies to certain federal

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

constitutional challenges in state court. But plaintiffs did not cite, and the Court was

12

unable to find, any authority applying Williams Packing to the jurisdictional bar of the TIA

13

in federal court where plaintiffs are challenging state tax.
Even if the Williams Packing exception were to apply here, plaintiffs’ complaint

14
15

fails to specify facts demonstrating that “under the most liberal view of the law and facts,

16

the government cannot establish its claim” for tax liability. Williams Packing, 370 U.S. 1

17

at 7. Plaintiffs conclude that “[u]nder no circumstances can the EDD prevail” and that

18

plaintiffs “will suffer irreparable injury” if the Court does not issue an injunction. Compl.

19

¶ 16-17. However, the complaint does not allege plausible facts illustrating why. Compl.

20

¶ 17.

21

Moreover, amendment would be futile because this court lacks jurisdiction under

22

the TIA and plaintiffs allege facts that demonstrate that their case does not fall within the

23

ambit of Williams Packing. Plaintiffs’ complaint states that EDD did prevail in the appeal

24

to the Board, thus contradicting plaintiffs’ assertion that EDD could “[u]nder no

25

circumstances” succeed on the merits. Compl. at ¶ 13. In addition, plaintiffs allege they

26

“will suffer irreparable injury” if the Court does not issue an injunction. Compl. ¶ 16. But

27

plaintiffs have the opportunity to challenge their tax liability in state court. See Merch.

28

Concept Group, Inc., 181 Cal. App. 4th at 1281. Plaintiffs bear the burden to invoke
Case No. 15-cv-00730-NC

8

1

federal subject matter jurisdiction, and they have failed to adequately provide supporting

2

law or allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that jurisdiction is proper. See Thompson, 99

3

F.3d at 353.

4

III. CONCLUSION

5

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the “only exception” to the TIA’s

6

jurisdictional bar is if a state lacks plain, speedy and efficient procedures for a taxpayer to

7

challenge their tax liability. Jerron West, 129 F.3d at 1337. The Court declines to apply

8

California’s recognition of the Williams Packing exception to matters that interfere with

9

assessment and collection of state taxes in federal court. Moreover, plaintiffs have not
demonstrated that their claims fall within the narrow scope of the Williams Packing

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

exception, even if it were to apply. The Court’s decision is consistent with the policy and

12

purpose of the TIA: federal courts should not interfere with state tax collection if the state

13

provides a plain, speedy and efficient remedy. Because the Court finds it lacks subject

14

matter jurisdiction, the Court does not reach the 12(b)(6) and Eleventh Amendment issues

15

asserted in EDD’s motion. Thus, the Court DISMISSES the complaint without leave to

16

amend.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: June 12, 2015

20

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 15-cv-00730-NC

9