Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22STLC05464, Date: 2025-04-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STLC05464 Hearing Date: April 24, 2025 Dept: 68
Dept.
68
Date:
4-24-25
Case
#: 22STLC05464
Trial
Date: N/A
NEW TRIAL
MOVING
PARTY: Plaintiff, Rick Ladd
RESPONDING
PARTY: Defendant, County of Los Angeles, et al.
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Motion
for New Trial
SUMMARY
OF ACTION
Plaintiff
Rick Ladd owns certain real property identified as 3912 West 106th
St., Inglewood. Plaintiff alleges the County of Los Angeles improperly assessed
property taxes for the years 2019 through 2022, for a balance in excess of
$16,781.52.
On
August 17, 2022, and May 1, 2023, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a complaint and
first amended complaint for Refund of Property Taxes, Accounting, and
Declaratory Relief. On May 2, 2023, the action was reclassified as unlimited.
On September 5, 2023, the court (Department 85 writs and receivers) sustained
the demurrer to the accounting and declaratory relief cause of action without
leave to amend, overruled the demurrer to the refund of property taxes causes
of action, and determined the action was not properly before the department. On
September 7, 2023, the action was transferred to Department 68.
On
January 25, 2024, the court denied the motion to compel further responses to
Request for Production of Documents, numbers 3, 5-10, and granted the motion to
compel further responses to Requests for Admissions, numbers 8-11, 14, 18-21,
and 30-33, from defendants County of Los Angeles, et al. On October 30, 2024,
the court Denied the motion to Augment the Assessment Appeals Board
Administrative Record or Alternatively Issue a Writ of Administrative Mandamus
Compelling Augmentation.
On
January 22, 2025, the court conducted a one (1) day bench/non-jury trial. On
February 3, 2025, the court issued its ruling. The court denied the motion for
directed verdict/nonsuit. Upon consideration of administrative record and law,
the court found in favor of Defendant County of Los Angeles, and against
Plaintiff Ladd.
County
of Los Angeles filed a memorandum of costs on February 25, 2025. The court
entered judgment on March 6, 2025. On March 21, 2025, the court specially set
the hearing for new trial following the Notice of Intention to Move for New
Trial.
RULING: Denied
Plaintiff Rick Ladd, in pro per, moves for new trial on
grounds of improper order, abuse of discretion, excessive or inadequate award
of damages, insufficient evidence and error of law.
A court may order a full or partial new trial on
various grounds, including: (1) excessive or inadequate damages, (2)
insufficient evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, or a verdict or
other decision that is contrary to the law, and (3) an error in law, occurring
at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 657; see also Oakland Raiders v.
National Football League (2007) 41 Cal.4th 624, 633.) “A new trial shall not be granted upon the
ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other
decision, nor upon the ground of excessive or inadequate damages, unless after
weighing the evidence the court is convinced from the entire record, including
reasonable inferences therefrom, that the court or jury clearly should have
reached a different verdict or decision.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 657.) “The orthodox
statement of the rule is: Whether a new trial will be granted rests largely in
the discretion of a trial court; its order will not be disturbed except upon a
manifest and unmistakable abuse of such discretion.” (Townsend
v. Gonzalez (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 241, 245).
Plaintiff moves for new trial pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure sections 657, subdivisions 1, 5 and 6.: “1. Irregularity in the
proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court or
abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair
trial. 5. Excessive or inadequate damages. 6.
Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the
verdict or other decision, or the verdict or other decision is against law.”
A new trial may be granted based on any irregularity in the
proceedings of the court, or abuse of discretion by which either party was
prevented from having a fair trial. Prejudice must be affirmatively shown by
the party seeking a new trial. (Dunford
v. General Water Heater Corp. (1957) 150 Cal. App. 2d 260, 266.) “Included
in the classification of irregularities within the purview of subdivision 1 of
Code of Civil Procedure section 657 is an overt act of the judge which prevents
the complaining party from having a fair and impartial trial. (Citation.) Such
irregularity must be shown by affidavits presented in conjunction with a motion
for new trial. (Citations.) On such motion the determination is made with
reference to the course of conduct alleged to constitute an irregularity
violative of a right to a fair and impartial trial and it is immaterial whether
or not the irregularity resulted from bias or prejudice. (Citations.)” (Schrader Iron Works, Inc. v. Lee (1972)
26 Cal.App.3d 621, 638.)
“‘[W]hen it
appears that the issue of liability was correctly determined, a new trial
limited to damages “should be granted ... only if it is clear that no injustice
will result.... [A] request for such a trial should be considered with the
utmost caution [citations] and ... any doubts should be resolved in favor of
granting a complete new trial.”’” (Citations.) “‘For like reason an appellate court
will not grant a new trial as to limited issues when an injustice might
result.’” (Ryan v. Crown Castle NG Networks Inc. (2016) 6
Cal.App.5th 775, 790.)
Plaintiff challenges the judgment on grounds of improperly
excluded evidence, which constituted an abuse of discretion, thereby materially
impacting Plaintiff’s rights. If the evidence were considered, the court would
have reached a different result in finding in favor of Plaintiff.
Plaintiff specifically cites to the judgment, whereby the
court found Plaintiff and the County Assessor agreed to a $350,000 property
valuation. The court also excluded consideration certain documents. The
circumstances leading to the exclusion of certain documents were specifically
adressed in the first cause of action regarding violation of California Revenue
and Tax code section 1604. The court improperly took judicial notice of
Plaintiff’s failure to present said documents, thereby improperly disregarding
the claims. Plaintiff also challenges the findings regarding the failure to
exhaust administrative remedies as “patently false.” The court therefore
committed error in not addressing the statutory violative conduct at the time
of the July 2022 appeal hearing.
The court understands Plaintiff’s efforts to seek review of
the underlying administrative process itself (e.g. a review of the Assessment
Appeals Board hearing). Plaintiff’s citation to the statutes governing lends
support to the sought after relief. Nevertheless, the court must again make
clear that the procedural limitations leave the court with limited review. This
is a function of public policy regarding the administrative process.
The court therefore finds the subject motion constitutes
another re-argument of the ruling originating from the writs and receivers
court, whereby the court overruled the demurrer to the first cause of action
and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to the remaining two
causes of action. The court specifically reviewed the administrative record,
and categorically found no challenge to the actual
wrongfulness of any assessment. The court concluded the remaining cause of
action constituted a sole claim for miscalculation of the properly refunded
amount. The court held the case shall only proceed on the issue of the tax
refund, which led to the assignment of the action to Department 68. (Little v. Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Bds. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 915, 923 accord Sunrise Retirement Villa v. Dear (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 948, 955 (footnote 2.)
By the time the court received the
case, the subject action remained strictly limited to the administrative record.
(Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th
559, 579; see FlightSafety Intern., Inc. v. Los Angeles County Assessment
Appeals Bd. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 712, 721.) The court found no
basis to augment the administrative record. The
court found all information was submitted at the time
of the administrative hearing. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, § 313, subd. (e).) Again,
the court remains limited in its review of the hearing regardless of
articulated cause of action. “We have repeatedly held that issues not presented
at an administrative hearing cannot be raised on review.” (Niles Freeman
Equipment v. Joseph (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 765, 787.) “Exhaustion
of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a judicial
action challenging any planning decision. (Citation.) If a party wishes
to make a particular methodological challenge to a given study relied upon in
planning decisions, the challenge must be raised in the course of the
administrative proceedings. Otherwise, it cannot be raised in any subsequent
judicial proceedings.” (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City
& County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 685.) The court found no legal or factual basis of support for
an alternative “legal” challenge allowing the introduction of further, proposed
evidence to the record.
The arguments in support therefore offer no new evidence or
any support for the arguments regarding judicial error. The subject motion
constitutes an effort at re-trial. Given the Court found a factually and
legally supported basis for the administrative record as presented, the court
found no basis for continued, further challenge. The judgment is correct.
Defendants therefore establishes no judicial error, lack of due process, abuse
of discretion, or excessive damages.
The motion is therefore DENIED.
Plaintiff
to give notice.