Public Litigation Roster

• Current Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court
  • Case Number: BC645390
  • Case Status: La Paloma's and BOE's closing brief and findings are due on July 27 and September 6, 2022, respectively.
    • La Paloma reply brief is due on September 23, 2022
      • Closing argument, October 14, 2022.
  • Filing Date: 1/03/2017
  • Amended complaint filing date: 11/12/2019
• Bankruptcy Court (Prior Venue): United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware
  • Case Number: 16-12700
  • Filing Date: 12/06/2016
• Plaintiff's Demand: $ 17,000,000 plus Interest
• Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
Plaintiff contends specified Board-adopted Unitary Valuations of its state-assessed power generation facility were excessive and seeks property tax refunds for the specified lien dates (2012-2016). The Board of Equalization (BOE) filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication on July 2, 2020 and contended: (1) for tax year 2012, Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies; (2) for tax years 2012-2016, Plaintiff cannot assert a refund action seeking property values below Plaintiff-asserted unitary values with its reassessment and refund claims. On September 30, 2020, the Superior Court ruled on the Motion for Summary Adjudication in favor of the BOE resolving certain issues. A trial readiness conference occurred on April 4, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. The trial commenced on May 2, 2022 at the Los Angeles Superior Court, Stanley Mosk Courthouse.
The evidence presentation phase of the trial concluded on May 10, 2022, with instructions for further briefings. The parties have agreed to extend the due dates for filing their closing briefs and findings.

Notes

1. This case was removed to the Bankruptcy Court in April 2017. The Bankruptcy Court issued a decision issued in July 2018. On November 2019, La Paloma filed a first amended complaint with the Superior Court.

• Current Court: Riverside County Superior Court
  • Case Number: RIC1905814
  • Filing Date: FAC – 02/19/2020; 11/22/2019
  • Case Status: Temporary Stay effective 05/24/2022
• Plaintiff's Demand: $ 963,278 plus Interest
• Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff is seeking refund of 2014-2015 property tax and declaratory relief based on their assertion that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. Plaintiff moved for judicial notice on information presented on the BOE's website, which motion the court denied in November 2020. Plaintiff is currently seeking stipulations with Riverside County and the BOE. A case management conference scheduled for July 9, 2021 is vacated. A trial setting conference occurred on Jan. 6, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. where the court scheduled a trial readiness conference for September 22, 2022 at 8:30 a.m., and a three-day bench trial to commence on October 21, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. On May 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed an unopposed ex parte Application for Stay in this case which the trial court granted. Accordingly, the Court removed the pretrial conference (September 22, 2022) and the three-day bench trial (October 21, 2022) from the Court’s calendar.

• Current Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court
  • Case Number: 20CV363802
  • Filing Date: FAC – 2/19/2020
• Plaintiff's Demand: $ 10,648,000 plus Interest
• Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks refund of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 property taxes plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. On October 13, 2020, County of Santa Clara demurred, which the court overruled on April 6, 2021. A case management conference was held on April 27, 2021. A case management conference is scheduled for November 29, 2022.

• Current Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court
  • Case Number: 20CV363804
  • Filing Date: FAC – 9/9/2020
• Plaintiff's Demand: $ 1,472,291 plus Interest
• Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks refund of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. On October 13, 2020, County of Santa Clara demurred which the court overruled on April 6, 2021. The case management conference is scheduled for November 29, 2022.

• Current Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court
  • Case Number: 20CV363806
  • Case Status: Case Management Conference, November 29, 2022
  • Filing Date: FAC – 9/9/2020
• Plaintiff's Demand: $ 1,109,214 plus Interest
• Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks refund of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 property tax plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. On October 13, 2020, County of Santa Clara demurred, which the Court overruled on April 6, 2021. A case management conference was held on April 27, 2021. The case management conference is scheduled for November 29, 2022.

• Current Court: San Diego County Superior Court
  • Case Number: 37-2019-00065146-CU-MC-CTL
  • Case Status Conference: July 29, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.
  • Filing Date: FAC – 07/01/2020
• Plaintiff's Demand: $ 3,307,656 plus Interest
• Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks refund of 2014-2015 property tax plus interest and declaratory relief on the ground that the property tax rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law, and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. A case management conference is scheduled for July 29, 2022.

• Current Court: Kern County Superior Court
  • Case Number: BCV-20-100751
  • Case Status: Temporary Stay effective 02/24/2021
    • Case Status Conference – 09/27/2022
  • Filing Date: 03/16/2020
• Plaintiff's Demand: $ 507,463 plus Interest
• Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2014-2015 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. A case status conference is scheduled for September 27, 2022.

• Current Court: Kern County Superior Court
  • Case Number: BCV-20-100748
  • Case Status: Temporary stay pending final judgment in BNSD Railway Company v. Alameda County, et al. No. 19-cv-07230 (N.D. Cal.).
  • Filing Date: 03/13/2020
• Plaintiff's Demand: $ 237,679 plus Interest
• Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2014-2015 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. A case status conference was held on June 20, 2022. The court will hold a case status conference on August 19, 2022.

• Current Court: Kern County Superior Court
  • Case Number: BCV-20-102359
  • Case Status: Temporary Stay effective 02/24/2021
    • Case Status Conference – 09/27/2022
  • Filing Date: 03/16/2020
• Plaintiff's Demand: $ 37,837 plus Interest
• Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2015-2016 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. A case status conference is scheduled for September 22, 2022.

• Current Court: Kern County Superior Court
  • Case Number: BCV-20-100750
  • Case Status: Temporary Stay effective 02/24/2021
    • Case Status Conference – 09/27/2022
  • Filing Date: 03/16/2020
• Plaintiff's Demand: $ 26,270 plus Interest
• Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2014-2015 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. A case status conference is scheduled for September 27, 2022.

• Current Court: Kern County Superior Court
  • Case Number: BCV-20-100749
  • Case Status: Temporary Stay effective 02/24/2021
    • Case Status Conference – 09/27/2022
  • Filing Date: 03/16/2020
• Plaintiff's Demand: $ 40,171 plus Interest
• Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
The BOE is named a party as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2014-2015 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. A case status conference is scheduled for September 27, 2022.

• Current Court: Riverside County Superior Court
  • Case Number: RIC1905815
  • Case Status: Temporary Stay effective 10/28/2020
  • Filing Date: FAC – 08/19/2020
• Plaintiff's Demand: $ 200,316 plus Interest
• Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
BOE is named a party as required for claims against state assessed property pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2014-2015 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution.

• Current Court: Riverside County Superior Court
  • Case Number: RIC1905817
  • Case Status: Temporary Stay effective 10/28/2020
  • Filing Date: FAC – 08/19/2020
• Plaintiff's Demand: $ 257,735 plus Interest
• Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
BOE is named a party as required for claims against state-assessed property pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2014-2015 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution.

• Current Court: Orange County Superior Court
  • Case Number: (2020) Case No. 30-2022-01258109-CU-MC-CJC, and (2021) Case No. 30-2022-01258057-CU-MC-CJC
  • Case Status: Case Management Conference, 10/7/2022.
  • Filing Date: May 5, 2022
• Plaintiff's Demand: ”difference between the parties' positions on the value of Edison’s property multiplied by the tax rate“ plus interest.
• Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
On May 5, 2022, in Orange County Superior Court, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) filed a tax refund action pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5148, alleging that the 2020 and 2021 Board-adopted unitary values for SCE's state assessed property were in excess of fair market value. Plaintiff further alleges that it is entitled to a property tax refund on the ”difference between the parties' positions on the value of Edison's property multiplied by the tax rate.“ The BOE was served with Summons and Complaint on May 18, 2022 and in accordance with Revenue and Taxation Code section 5148, the BOE provided notice of these lawsuits to the 19 affected counties. (Fresno, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Madera, Modoc, Mono, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Tulare, Tuolumne, and Ventura. The BOE filed its Answer to SCE's Complaint on July 20, 2022.

• Current Court: Kern County Superior Court
  • Case Number: BCV-21-101547
  • Case Status: Case management conference, 09/05/2022
  • Filing Date: July 7, 2021
• Plaintiff's Demand: $35,219.03 plus interest.
• Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
BOE is named a party as required for claims against state-assessed property pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2016-2017 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. A case management conference is scheduled for September 5, 2022.

• Current Court: Kern County Superior Court
  • Case Number: BCV-21-101548
  • Case Status: Case management conference, 09/05/2022
  • Filing Date: July 7, 2021
• Plaintiff's Demand: $66,850.76 plus interest.
• Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
BOE is named a party as required for claims against state-assessed property pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146. Plaintiff seeks partial refund of 2016-2017 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that the rate adopted and applied by the county is contrary to law and exceeded the rate allowable under article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution. A case management conference is scheduled for September 5, 2022.

• Court of Appeal: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District
  • Consolidated Case Number: B307981
  • Trial Court Cases: BS143436, BS158655, BS157999
  • Filing: Consolidation Order: 03/30/2021
    Appeals Lodged: 03/11/2021, 09/30/2020
• Originating Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court
  • Consolidated Case Number: BS143436
  • Related Case Numbers: BS157999, BS158655, BC655980, BC683103, BC324947, BC695616
  • Filing Date: 7/3/2013
  • Related Cases: 11/6/2015, 12/16/2015, 5/15/2017, 3/2/2018, and 6/4/2018
• Plaintiff's Demand: $0; Plaintiff is pursuing a Writ, compelling BOE to assess gross premium tax. (Tax on Insurers.)
• Potential BOE Liability: Attorneys' Fees and Costs

SUMMARY:
In the underlying Superior Court action, Plaintiff filed a writ of mandamus (Cal. Civ. Proc. §§ 526(a) and 1085) seeking to compel the Board of Equalization (BOE), Insurance Commissioner, and Controller of the State of California, to determine, assess, and collect, gross premium tax from Real Parties in Interest: Kaiser Foundational Health Plan, Inc. (Kaiser); Health Net of California (Health Net); Blue Cross of California (Blue Cross); Blue Shield of California (Blue Shield), (collectively Real Parties). At issue is whether Real Parties are “insurers.” Real Parties demurred, which the court granted. Plaintiff appealed the Court's grant of summary judgment on Sept. 30, 2020 (Kaiser and Health Net) and March 11, 2021 (Blue Cross and Blue Shield), respectively. The Court of Appeal consolidated these cases on March 30, 2021 under Case Number B307981. Appellant's opening brief was filed on September 17, 2021. Real Parties' opening briefs are due on January 3, 2022. The Insurance Commissioner, on October 20, 2021 was granted leave to file an amicus curaie brief to clarify their position on the meaning of ‘indemnity’ for purposes of assessing gross premium taxation. Response to the amicus curaie brief is due no later than January 3, 2022.

• Current Court:
  • Case Number: D079315
  • Trial Court Case: 37-2019-00030244-CU-MC-NC
  • Filing Date: 6/13/2019
  • Originating Court: San Diego County Superior Court

SUMMARY:
Plaintiff was assessed income tax deficiencies by the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) for the tax years 1993, 1994, and 1995, which were appealed to the Board of Equalization, who decided the matter for FTB. Plaintiff filed the instant complaint for declaratory relief and redetermination de novo of the tax deficiencies at issue. On April 19, 2021, the Court ruled in favor of FTB and BOE. On July 9, 2021, the Plaintiff filed its appeal on the lower court's judgment of dismissal. Plaintiff's (Appellant) opening brief was timely filed on December 21, 2021. On December 29, 2021, the parties agreed to allow a 60-day extension for FTB to file its opening briefs, which was timely filed on April 20, 2022. On April 22, 2022, Appellant filed a request for remote oral arguments. FTB, on April 28, 2022 countered with their request for in-person conditional oral arguments. On May 4, 2022, Appellant's attorneys requested, and FTB consented, to stipulate to extend the time to file Appellant's reply brief which the court granted on May 10, 2022. Appellant's reply brief is now due on July 11, 2022.