Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 21TRCV00695, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00695    Hearing Date: September 1, 2022    Dept: B

PROCEEDINGS

Lenlyn Ltd. dba Ice Currency Services USA v. County of Los Angeles

21TRCV00695

1. County of Los Angeles’ Motion to Augment Administrative Record   

    

   TENTATIVE RULING

   
   

               Background

    

               Plaintiff filed the Complaint on September 24, 2021.  Plaintiff alleges the following facts.  Plaintiff appeals a decision of the Los Angeles Assessment Appeals Board (“Board”) that set a new base year value of Plaintiff’s property for tax purposes.  Plaintiff alleges a sole cause of action for Recovery of Taxes Paid After Denial of Claims for Refund pursuant to Rev. and Tax. Code § 5140.

    

               Motion to Augment Administrative Record

    

               Defendant moves for an order to augment the administrative record to be filed in this action.  Defendant requests for leave to supplement the record of the Board proceedings to add authenticated official records that allegedly refute Plaintiff’s factual assertions which are not currently part of the administrative record.  Specifically, Defendant seeks to add the following records: 1. The Supplemental Property Tax Bill for Tax Year 2014-2015 corresponding to delinquent bill no. 17/9850086; 2. The Supplemental Property Tax Bill for Tax Year 2014-2015 corresponding to delinquent bill no. 17/9840237; 3. The Adjusted Property Tax Bill for tax year 2017-2018 corresponding to delinquent bill no. 17/9840416.

    

               The motion is denied without prejudice because Defendant failed to identify any procedural authority or mechanism by which Defendant may request leave to augment the administrative record by a noticed pre-trial motion.  Instead, all the relevant authorities cited by Defendant appear to reveal that Defendant’s request specifically deals with the admissibility of evidence.  Typically, issues of admissibility of evidence are addressed at trial, or with motions in limine.

    

               Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Augment Administrative Record is denied without prejudice.  The denial without prejudice is, of course, not on the merits, and the issue of the admissibility of the evidence sought to be introduced by Defendant can, if needed, be addressed by the Court through the proper procedural mechanisms which are authorized to resolve issues of evidence.

    

               Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.