Public Litigation Roster

• Current Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court
  • Case Number: BC645390
  • Case Status: The parties are awaiting service of the final decision. Chief Counsel Henry Nanjo will be discussing potential next steps during the April 2023 Board Meeting's Closed Session.
  • 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. An oral argument hearing is scheduled for December 16, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.

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: Stayed pending the Sixth Appellate District's final judgment in County of Santa Clara v. Super. Ct., Case No. H049161. Case management conference continued to June 8, 2023.
• 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. Case management conference is scheduled for April 11, 2023.

• Current Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court
  • Case Number: 20CV363802
  • Case Status: The appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court, directing the trial court to vacate the order overruling the demurrer and to enter a new order sustaining the demurrer. The trial judge is expected to follow the appellate court's directions.
  • 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 April 11, 2023.

• Current Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court
  • Case Number: 20CV363804
  • Filing Date: FAC – 9/9/2020
  • Case Status: The appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court, directing the trial court to vacate the order overruling the demurrer and to enter a new order sustaining the demurrer. A case management conference is scheduled for November 7, 2023. The trial judge will be expected to follow the appellate court's directions.
• 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. A case management conference is scheduled for April 11, 2023.

• Current Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court
  • Case Number: 20CV363806
  • Case Status: The appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court, directing the trial court to vacate the order overruling the demurrer and to enter a new order sustaining the demurrer. A case management conference is scheduled for November 7, 2023. The trial judge will be expected to follow the appellate court's directions.
  • 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 April 11, 2023.

• Current Court: San Diego County Superior Court
  • Case Number: 37-2019-00065146-CU-MC-CTL
  • Case Status: The Court has stayed this litigation as of the July 28, 2022, case management conference. The next case management conference date is on July 28, 2023.
  • 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. The Court has stayed this litigation as of the July 28, 2022, case management conference

• Current Court: Riverside County Superior Court
  • Case Number: RIC1905815
  • Case Status: Stayed pending final judgment in the AT&T Mobility LLC, et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. case. Case management conference scheduled for June 8, 2023.
  • 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: Stayed pending final judgment in the AT&T Mobility LLC, et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. case. Case management conference scheduled for June 8, 2023.
  • 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: The Court granted a continuance for the case management conference of both cases to June 22, 2023.
  • 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. A case management conference is scheduled for June 22, 2023.

• Current Court: Riverside County Superior Court
  • Case Number: CVRI22204040
  • Case Status: The case management conference is scheduled for June 8, 2023. The case is currently stayed.
  • Filing Date: September 16, 2022
• Plaintiff's Demand:

  Sunesys, $170, 674.43, plus accrued interest
  NG West, $49, 615.63, plus accrued interest
  NewPath, $23, 840.20, plus accrued 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 5140. Plaintiff seeks partial tax refund of 2017-2018 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that disparate tax rates were applied and levying and collecting property taxes from plaintiffs for tax year 2017/18 violated California Constitution, Article XIII, section 19. A case management conference is scheduled for April 6, 2023.

• Current Court: San Joaquin County Superior Court
  • Case Number: STK-CV-UCC-2022-9917
  • Case Status: The parties are at the pleading stage. This case has been stayed as of January 17, 2023.
  • Filing Date: November 07, 2022
• Plaintiff's Demand: $103,171.64, plus accrued 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 5140. Plaintiff seeks partial tax refund of 2017-2018 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that disparate tax rates were applied and levying and collecting property taxes from plaintiffs for tax year 2017/18 violated California Constitution, Article XIII, section 19.

• Current Court: San Diego County Superior Court
  • Case Number: 37-2023-00006038
  • Case Status: The case management conference is scheduled for July 28, 2023.
  • Filing Date: February 10, 2023
• Plaintiff's Demand: $410,139.85 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 tax refund of 2017-2018 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that disparate tax rates were applied and levying and collecting property taxes from plaintiffs for tax year 2017/18 violated California Constitution, Article XIII, section 19.

• Current Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court
  • Case Number: 22CV408135
  • Case Status: The case management conference is scheduled for April 25, 2023.
  • Filing Date: December 1, 2022
• Plaintiff's Demand: $210,892.01 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 tax refund of 2017-2018 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that disparate tax rates were applied and levying and collecting property taxes from plaintiffs for tax year 2017/18 violated California Constitution, Article XIII, section 19.

• Current Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court
  • Case Number: 23CV411766
  • Case Status: This case is currently at the pleading stage. The DAG will be filing a response accordingly.
  • Filing Date: February 14, 2023
• Plaintiff's Demand: $636,450.23 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 tax refund of 2017-2018 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that disparate tax rates were applied and levying and collecting property taxes from plaintiffs for tax year 2017/18 violated California Constitution, Article XIII, section 19.

• Current Court: Orange County Superior Court
  • Case Number: 30-2023-01308650-CU-MC-CXC
  • Case Status: This case is currently at the pleading stage. The DAG will be filing a response accordingly. There is a case management conference scheduled for July 24, 2023.
  • Filing Date: February 17, 2023
• Plaintiff's Demand: $269,787.05 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 tax refund of 2017-2018 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that disparate tax rates were applied and levying and collecting property taxes from plaintiffs for tax year 2017/18violated California Constitution, Article XIII, section 19.

• Current Court: Santa Barbara County Superior Court
  • Case Number: 23CV00752
  • Case Status: This case is currently at the pleading stage. The DAG will be filing a response accordingly. There is a case management conference scheduled for June 28, 2023.
  • Filing Date: February 23, 2023
• Plaintiff's Demand: $181,973.75 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 tax refund of 2017-2018 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that disparate tax rates were applied and levying and collecting property taxes from plaintiffs for tax year 2017/18 violated California Constitution, Article XIII, section 19.

• Current Court: Contra Costa County Superior Court
  • Case Number: C23-00716
  • Case Status: This case is currently at the pleading stage. The DAG will be filing a response accordingly. The case management conference is scheduled for July 28, 2023.
  • Filing Date: 3/29/2023
• Plaintiff's Demand: $293,867.56 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 tax refund of 2017-2018 property tax and declaratory relief on the ground that disparate tax rates were applied and levying and collecting property taxes from plaintiffs for tax year 2017/18 violated California Constitution, Article XIII, section 19.

• Court of Appeal: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District
  • Consolidated Case Number: B307981
  • Trial Court Cases: BS143436, BS158655, BS157999
  • Case Status: The appellate court has affirmed the superior court's decision that the Real Parties In Interest were not insurers.
  • 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: U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division
  • Case Number: 8.22-CV-2976-MSS-JSS
  • Case Status: The DAG has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint; Plaintiff to amend complaint by June 6, 2023.
  • Filing Date: 12/30/22