Cnty. of Humboldt v. Appellate Div. of the Superior Court of Humboldt Cnty.

46 Cal.App.5th 298

259 Cal.Rptr.3d 687

COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, Petitioner,

v.APPELLATE DIVISION OF the SUPERIOR COURT OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY, Respondent;

Alejandro Quezada, Real Party in Interest.

A157609

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

Filed March 10, 2020

Jeffrey S. Blanck, County Counsel, John B. Nguyen, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Kenneth M. Bareilles, Eureka, for Real Party in Interest.

Sanchez, J. Government Code section 53069.4 ( section 53069.4 ) was enacted to give local governments the authority to assess administrative fines or penalties for violation of any local ordinance. Judicial review of a final administrative order or decision may be obtained either by petition for writ of mandate or by a limited de novo appeal to the superior court of the county. In the proceedings below, petitioner Humboldt County Code Enforcement (County) brought an enforcement action against real party in interest Alejandro Quezada for conditions on his property which were deemed public nuisances in violation of county ordinance. Quezada sought review of the adverse agency determination through a de novo appeal to the superior court, which reduced the administrative penalty from $88,800 to $59,200.

Although the amount in controversy unquestionably exceeded the $25,000 threshold for a limited civil case, the County appealed to respondent appellate division of the superior court based on subdivision (b)(1) of section 53069.4, which provides that "a proceeding under this subdivision is a limited civil case." Respondent, however, concluded that "no right to appeal exists in a code enforcement proceeding beyond that specified in Government Code § 53069.4(b)"—thus finding a superior court order after a de novo appeal under section 53069.4 to be final and nonreviewable. Respondent dismissed the County’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The County filed the instant writ petition, asking us to determine whether a superior court judgment from a de novo appeal under section 53069.4 is itself appealable.

We conclude that in an unlimited civil action such as the present one, a final judgment or order from a de novo appeal to the superior court under section 53069.4 is itself reviewable on appeal to an intermediate appellate court. ( Code Civil Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(1).)¹ Accordingly, we issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing respondent appellate division to vacate its May 7, 2019 order dismissing the County’s appeal and to issue a new order transferring the case to this court for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

In October 2017, the County issued a notice of violation and proposed administrative civil penalty against Alejandro Quezada for conditions existing on a property he owned in Bridgeville, which were alleged to constitute public nuisances in violation of various provisions of the Humboldt County Code (HCC). The violations included the presence of an inoperable and/or junk vehicle (HCC, § 354-1), an unapproved sewage disposal system (HCC, § 611–3), improper storage and removal of solid waste (HCC, § 521-4), construction of structures without proper permits (HCC, § 331-28), unpermitted grading (HCC, § 331-14), and violation of the commercial cannabis land use ordinance (HCC, § 314-55.4). The notice further indicated that if the violations were not remediated within 10 calendar days of service of the notice, a daily administrative penalty of $10,000 could be imposed for a period of up to 90 days. (See HCC, § 352-5.)

Quezada challenged the matters covered by the notice and requested an administrative hearing. Following the December 2017 hearing, the hearing officer concluded that each of the six violations set forth above constituted a public nuisance, that various actions were required to correct the violations, and that the County was entitled to civil penalties of $88,800. The hearing officer’s January 2018 order memorialized these determinations and informed Quezada that the decision could be appealed to the superior court in accordance with section 53069.4 or reviewed by petition for writ of mandate within the timeframes set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6.

Quezada elected to file a notice of appeal in the superior court, seeking a de novo review of the matter under section 53069.4. His notice of appeal did not designate the action as either limited or unlimited. After reviewing the administrative record and considering the written and oral arguments of the parties, the superior court issued its ruling on appeal de novo in October 2018. The court concluded that the six violations at issue qualified as nuisances under the county code. However, it reduced the total fine payable by Quezada to $59,200. In doing so, the court rejected the County’s position that the maximum daily penalty of $10,000 should be assessed for 37 days, a total of $370,000. The court entered a judgment in the de novo appeal reflecting its findings and orders on November 27, 2018.

Not satisfied with the superior court’s decision in the matter, the County appealed to respondent appellate division of the superior court using the designated Judicial Council form for a limited civil case. On December 21, 2018, respondent issued an order to show cause as to why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The order to show cause expressed doubt that the superior court’s ruling was appealable because Code of Civil Procedure section 904.2, which lists the types of orders or judgments from which an appeal may be taken in limited civil cases, does not specifically mention orders from a de novo appeal under section 53069.4. In response, the County argued that the superior court’s decision was appealable in the same manner as any other judgment made final and conclusive by law. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 904.2, subd. (a).) The County asserted that "fairness considerations" supported appealability given the significant amount in controversy.

On May 7, 2019, respondent issued an order dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court found "that no right to appeal exists in a code enforcement proceeding beyond that specified in Government Code § 53069.4(b)." Judge Canning dissented, concluding that a decision after a section 53069.4 appeal de novo is appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.2, subdivision (a), as a final judgment in a limited civil action.

The County then filed the instant petition challenging the appellate division’s dismissal of its code enforcement appeal. On September 13, 2019, we issued an order to show cause why the relief requested by the County should not be granted. No return having been filed, the matter is now fully briefed and before us for decision.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Humboldt County’s Ordinance Implementing Section 53069.4

Section 53069.4 authorizes local governments to enact an administrative process to enforce violations of any ordinance through the imposition and collection of administrative fines or penalties. (See Legis. Counsel’s Dig., Sen. Bill No. 814, Stats. 1995, ch. 898 (1995-1996 Reg. Sess.).) The law was intended "to provide a faster and more cost-effective enforcement mechanism than criminal prosecution for the violation of a local ordinance." ( 94 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 39, 43 (2011).) The statute provides that the legislative body of a local agency "may by ordinance make any violation of any ordinance enacted by the local agency subject to an administrative fine or penalty." ( § 53069.4, subd. (a)(1).) Despite its broad applicability, the requirements for implementing a code enforcement process are relatively basic: "The local agency shall set forth by ordinance the administrative procedures that shall govern the imposition, enforcement, collection, and administrative review by the local agency of those administrative fines or penalties." (Ibid. ) Any such administrative procedures must provide for "a reasonable period of time, as specified in the ordinance, for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or otherwise remedy the violation prior to the imposition of administrative fines or penalties, when the violation pertains to building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural or zoning issues, that do not create an immediate danger to health or safety." (Id. , subd. (a)(2)(A).)²

Section 53069.4, subdivision (b)(1), which provides for judicial review of a local agency’s final administrative order in a code enforcement action, states as follows: "Notwithstanding Section[s] 1094.5 or 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, within 20 days after service of the final administrative order or decision of the local agency is made pursuant to an ordinance enacted in accordance with this section regarding the imposition, enforcement, or collection of the administrative fines or penalties, a person contesting that final administrative order or decision may seek review by filing an appeal to be heard by the superior court, where the same shall be heard de novo, except that the contents of the local agency’s file in the case shall be received in evidence. A proceeding under this subdivision is a limited civil case. A copy of the document or instrument of the local agency providing notice of the violation and imposition of the administrative fine or penalty shall be admitted into evidence as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein."

Under the authority granted by section 53069.4, Humboldt County adopted a procedure for the imposition of administrative civil penalties within the unincorporated area of the county. (HCC, § 352-1; see generally HCC, §§ 352-1 through 352-28.) The procedure authorizes a daily administrative civil penalty of up to $10,000 for up to 90 days for "[a]ny and all Violations." (HCC, § 352-5, subd. (a).) "Violation" is broadly defined to include any failure to comply with the provisions of the HCC or other adopted uniform codes; any failure to comply with an order of the Humboldt...