Dedication & Everlasting Love to Animals, Inc. v. City of El Monte

85 Cal.App.5th 113

301 Cal.Rptr.3d 141

DEDICATION AND EVERLASTING LOVE TO ANIMALS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.CITY OF EL MONTE, Defendant and Respondent.

B318078

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8, California.

Filed November 8, 2022

Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani, Drew E. Pomerance, Woodland Hills, and Vincent S. Gannuscio for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Olivarez Madruga Law Organization, Terence J. Gallagher and Leslie Anne Burnet, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent.

HARUTUNIAN, J.^*

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and appellant Dedication and Everlasting Love to Animals, Inc. (DELTA) owns a vacant lot in defendant and respondent City of El Monte (City or El Monte). After receiving several citations for violating the municipal code, DELTA sought administrative review. The citations were upheld, and DELTA appealed to the superior court, which summarily affirmed the administrative opinion. DELTA then attempted to appeal to the appellate division of the superior court, but when its filing was rejected, it appealed to this court instead.¹ We conclude this matter is a limited civil case—and this court lacks jurisdiction over limited civil cases. We therefore transfer the matter to the appellate division of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

BACKGROUND

1. Citations and Administrative Hearing

On April 24, 2021, an El Monte neighborhood services officer issued a notice of violation of the El Monte Municipal Code based on accumulated trash and debris (El Monte Mun. Code, § 8.44.030, subd. (m)), overgrown weeds (id. , subd. (k)(3)), a dilapidated "fence, gate, or block wall" (id. , subd. (h)), and graffiti (id. , subd. (g)) at 3007 Durfee Avenue, which is a vacant lot. DELTA was given until May 8, 2021 to correct the violations.

On May 8, 2021, the officer re-inspected the property and, finding the violations uncorrected, issued administrative citation No. CE-17195-1. The initial amount owed was $422. DELTA was notified that the property would be inspected again the following week. The property was inspected again on May 22, May 29, and June 18, 2021, and additional citations were issued, increasing the total amount due to $7,288.

On May 26, 2021, DELTA filed an application for an administrative hearing for the original citation. DELTA argued that the conditions on its property stemmed from the City's failure "to control [an] intractable homeless problem causing trespassing onto the property. The City has been asked to alleviate said problems but has not done so. Efforts by owner to clean and repair property have been rendered ineffective due to repeated intrusions."

The hearing was held on June 29, 2021. The hearing officer upheld the citations but reduced the total fine by $1,000. The hearing officer notified DELTA that its decision could be appealed to the superior court in accordance with Government Code ² section 53069.4, subdivision (b), and El Monte Municipal Code section 1.18.90, subdivision (c).

2. Appeal to the Superior Court

On July 26, 2021, DELTA filed a notice of appeal to the superior court. ( § 53069.4, subd. (b).) The case was designated as a limited civil case.

After a hearing on the matter was repeatedly set and rescheduled, on September 24, 2021, the court issued a minute order summarily affirming the administrative ruling.

On October 8, 2021, DELTA filed a petition for rehearing, but it does not appear that the court ruled on the petition.

DELTA then attempted to file a notice of appeal to the appellate division of the superior court on October 22, 2021. But the appellate division rejected the filing, explaining: "The appellate division does not have jurisdiction over appeals regarding administrative hearings. Please see local Rule, 2.7." Finally, DELTA filed a notice of appeal in this court.³

DISCUSSION

DELTA contends the administrative findings are not supported by substantial evidence, and the trial court violated its due process rights by affirming the administrative opinion without providing notice or an opportunity to be heard. We do not reach those issues, however, because we conclude this is a limited civil case over which we lack jurisdiction.

1. The Administrative Process for Municipal Code Violations

" 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. [Citation.] The law was intended ‘to provide a faster and more cost-effective enforcement mechanism than a criminal prosecution for the violation of a local ordinance.’ " ( County of Humboldt v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 298, 305, 259 Cal.Rptr.3d 687.) The statute provides: "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. 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." ( § 53069.4, subd. (a)(1).)

The statute also creates an avenue to appeal administrative decisions. " Section 53069.4, subdivision (b)(1) creates an exception to the general rule that a petition for administrative mandamus, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, is ‘the exclusive remedy for judicial review of the quasi[-]adjudicatory administrative action of local level agencies.’ [Citation.]" ( Wang v. City of Sacramento Police Dept. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 372, 378, 283 Cal.Rptr.3d 578 ( Wang ).) In particular, it provides:

"Notwithstanding Section 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 ." ( § 53069.4, subd. (b)(1), italics added.)

Taken together, these provisions allow local governments to issue citations for code violations as long as they provide administrative procedures for cited individuals to challenge the citations. The cited individual may then appeal the administrative decision to the superior court where, if the amount in controversy is $25,000 or less, it will be treated as a limited civil case. ( Wang, supra , 68 Cal.App.5th at pp. 378–381, 283 Cal.Rptr.3d 578.)

El Monte adopted this procedure in sections 1.18.080 and 1.18.090 of its municipal code: section 1.18.080 lays out the administrative appeal process, and section 1.18.090 establishes a mechanism to appeal administrative decisions. Section 1.18.090 provides in part: "Decisions of the Hearing Officer are, in accordance with Government Code Section 53069.4(b), appealable to the superior court within twenty (20) days after the date of their service. Each decision shall contain a statement advising the appellant(s) of this appeal right and the procedures and court filing fee for its exercise." (El Monte Mun. Code, § 1.18.090, subd. (c), enacted by Ord. No. 2865, § 2, 9 - 15 -2015 and Ord. No. 2938, § 7, 11 - 20 -2018.)

Here, DELTA timely appealed the hearing officer's decision to the superior court, where the matter was designated a limited civil case.

2. Jurisdictional Classification

"The classification of civil cases as limited or unlimited has its roots in the historic division between municipal and superior courts. [Citation.] Historically, lower civil courts were divided into municipal courts, which had subject matter jurisdiction over cases where the amount in controversy was $25,000 or less, and superior courts, which had subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving more than $25,000. [Citation.] ‘A case filed in the superior court whose amount in controversy did not meet the jurisdictional minimum was subject to "transfer" of jurisdiction under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 396 from superior court to the municipal court.’ [Citation.]"

"In 1998, an amendment to the California Constitution ‘unif[ied]’ the two separate systems ‘into a single superior court system having original jurisdiction over all matters formerly designated as superior court and municipal court actions.’ [Citation.] ‘After unification, the municipal courts ceased to exist. [Citation.] Now civil cases formerly within the jurisdiction of municipal courts are classified as "limited" civil cases, while matters formerly within the jurisdiction of the superior court[ ] are classified as "unlimited" civil action[s]. ( [Code Civ. Proc.,] §§ 85, 88.)’ [Citation.] The classification of a civil case as limited or unlimited no longer affects the subject matter jurisdiction of the superior court. [Citation.]" ( Stratton v. Beck (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 483, 491–492, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 150.)

To qualify as a limited civil case, the matter must meet several conditions:

First, the amount in controversy must be $25,000 or less. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 85, subd. (a) [" ‘amount in controversy’ means the amount of the demand, or the recovery sought, or the value of the property, or the amount of the lien, that is in controversy in the action, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs"]; see also id. , § 86.) Second, the plaintiff must seek relief of a type that can be granted in limited civil cases. ( Id. , § 85, subd. (b).) And third, "[t]he relief sought ... [must be] exclusively of a type described in one or more statutes that classify an action or special proceeding as a limited civil case," including section 53069.4. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 85, subd. (c)(14).)

A limited civil...