No Value: COMMITTEE FOR TRANSPARENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT vs SONOMA COUNTY LAFCO

On October 02, 2023 a No Value was filed involving a dispute between Committee For Transparent Local Government, Schmid, Astrid, Schmid, Frear Stephen, and County Of Sonoma, Gold Ridge Fire Protection District, Sonoma County Lafco, for 02: Unlimited Writ of Mandate - CEQA in the District Court of Sonoma County.

Preview
ROBERT H. PITTMAN, State Bar No.172154
County Counsel
MICHAEL A. KING, State Bar No. 77014
Deputy County Counsel
VERNE R. BALL, State Bar No. 244014
Deputy County Counsel
KRISTIN HORRELL, State Bar No. 334411
Deputy County Counsel
575 Administration Drive, Room 105A
Santa Rosa, California 95403-2815
Telephone: (707) 565-2421
Facsimile: (707) 565-2624

Attorneys for Defendant
SONOMA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
10 and Real Party in Interest
COUNTY OF SONOMA
11
12
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13
FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
14
15 COMMITTEE FOR TRANSPARENT
GOVERNMENT, FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID, Case No.: 23CV00801
16 AND ASTRID SCHMID, (CEQA Action)
17 Plaintiffs Assigned for All Purposes to
Hon. Oscar A. Pardo
18 Dept. 19
19 DEFENDANTS SONOMA COUNTY LOCAL
AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION AND
20 SONOMA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY
FORMATION COMMISSION, incorrectly named COUNTY OF SONOMA’S NOTICE OF
21 as COUNTY OF SONOMA LAFCO, COUNTY DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO FIRST
OF SONOMA and GOLD RIDGE FIRE AMENDED COMPLAINT
22 PROTECTION DISTRICT,
DATE:
23 Defendants. TIME: 3:00 p.m.
24 DEPT: 19

25 Complaint Filed: October 2, 2023
26
27
28

Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
1
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on , 2024, at 3:00 p.m., in Courtroom 19 of the

above-entitled court located at 3055 Cleveland Ave., Santa Rosa, California, Defendant Sonoma County

Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) and Real Party in Interest Sonoma County (”County’”),

will and hereby do demur to Committee For Transparent Government, Frear Stephen Schmid, and Astrid

Schmid’s First Amended Verified Complaint For Writ of Mandate or Prohibition Relief and A CEQA

Action and Declaratory Relief (“First Amended Complaint”) filed herein.

LAFCO and the County demur to the First Amended Complaint in its entirety, and separately as to

the first and second causes of action, under California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision

10 (a) on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction of the subjects of these alleged causes of action.
11 LAFCO and the County demur to the First Amended Complaint in its entirety, and separately as to
12 the first and second causes of action, under California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision
13 (e) on the ground that the causes of action, collectively and individually, do not state facts sufficient to
14
constitute a cause of action against any party.
15
LAFCO and the County demur to the first and second causes of action under Code of Civil
16
Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f) on the ground it is uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible.
17
18 Dated: April 2, 2024 ROBERT H. PITTMAN, County Counsel
19
20 By: MichaelA. King
Michael A. King
21 Attorneys for Defendant
SONOMA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY
22
FORMATION COMMISSION and
23 Real Party in Interest
COUNTY OF SONOMA
24
25
26
27
28

Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEMURRER
I INTRODUCTION 10

IL STATEMENT OF FACTS 10
A Parties 10

B Procedural History 12
Til. ARGUMENT 14

A Legal Standard for Demurrer 14
B The Court Lacks Jurisdiction 14
1 Plaintiffs’ Complaint is untimely, and Plaintiffs have not met any of
10
the jurisdiction requirements for a reverse validation action 14
11
Plaintiffs’ failure to publish the summons in compliance with
12
Code of Civil Procedure section 863 also requires that the demurrer
13
be sustained 16
14
The failure to follow the procedural requirements for a reverse validation
15
also results in a defect in the parties .......... 17
16
The First Cause and Second Causes of Action fail to state a claim, as Code of
17
Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1094.5 can provide no relief in this case........ 17
18 The First Cause and Second Causes of Action are unintelligible, and fail to state
19 a claim to the extent they are intelligible 18
20 IV. CONCLUSION 23
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Armour v. City of Indianapolis

(2012) 566 U.S. 673, 680 20

Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah

(1991) 2 Cal. App. 4th 720, 726, 728 21

Bookout v. Local Agency Formation Com.

(1975) 49 Cal. App. 3d 383, 386-87 19

Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com.
10 (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 272 15
11 Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi
12 (2006) 144 Cal. App.4th 865, 875... 22
13 Citizens Assn. of Sunset Beach v. Orange County Local Agency Formation Com.
14 (2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 1182, 1186 23
15 Cmty. Redevelopment Agency v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.
16 (1967) 248 Cal. App. 2d 164, 178 16, 17
17 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist.
18 (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072, 1080-1081 22
19 County of Contra Costa v. State of California
20 (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 62, 77. csccccsssecssssssnsssssssssssssussssssnsessesisasssnissssinsesssnnesesnnesssiuseseseunnseseeee 22
21 Ellenberger v. Espinosa
22 (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 943, 947 14
23 Foxborough v. Van Atta
24 (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 217, 230 14
25 Friedland v. City of Long Beach
26 (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 835, 842 15
27 Hagar v. Reclamation Dist. No. 108
28 (1844) 111 U.S. 701, 709 19

Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
4
Hills for Everyone v. Local Agency Formation Com.

(1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 461, 466 15

Placer Cty. Local Agency Formation Com. v. Nev. Cty. Local Agency Formation Com.

(2006) 135 Cal. App. 4th 793, 797-98 10

Planning & Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency

(2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 210, 225-226 14

Porterville Citizens for Responsible Hillside Development v. City of Porterville

(2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 885, 910 22

Protect Agric. Land v. Stanislaus Cty. Local Agency Formation Com.

10 (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 550, 558 15,17

11 Sierra Club v. San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Com., supra,

12 21 Cal.4th 489, 495 14

13 Simi Valley Recreation & Park Dist. v. Local Agency Formation Com.

14 (1975) 51 Cal. App. 3d 648, 688 19

15 Tahoe Vista Concerned Citizens v. County of Placer

16 (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 577, 590 22

17 Tomlinson v. County of Alameda

18 (2012) 54 Cal.4th 281, 291 22

19 Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp.

20 (1986) 185 Cal. App. 3d 135, 139 18

21 Writers Guild of Am., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

22 (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 475, 477 14

23 Zumbrun v. University of Southern California

24 (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1, 8 18

25 Statutes
26 California Code of Civil Procedure
27 § 430.10 9, 15
28 § 860 16

Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
5
§ 861 16

§ SOLD eee eesesessescseescscsseseseesescseescsesseseseesessseseseesessseesssesseessesesssseassesesassesassessassesesseseeaseeseeeseeneee 18

§ 863 11,15

§ 1085 3, 15, 18
§ 1094.5. cee eee cee eee e eee e ee ne stances esta reese esta eseaeeteaessaeeeseessaeesseeeseeseeeeeseeeeaees 17

California Goverment Code

§56153 18

§ 25210 12, 15

§ 25213(b)... 12

10 § 27320 16

11 § 52106 21

12 § 549542 oes ecesesesesesscsesseseseesescseencssssesesessescseecseesesesessssesseassesessessassesesassesasacssassesssacsseasseseaeseeneee 19

13 § 56000 11

14 § 5O020.5 ooeeeesecceseecsesescsesscsescsesessescseescsssecseseenescseessseeneseseesssesseassesesssseassesesassesassessassesesacsseasseseeeseeneee 14

15 § 56102 14, 18

16 § 56103 11, 15, 16
17 § 56017 12,17

18 § 56033 12

19 § 56036 12

20 § 5O036.5 .oecececesesessesesescsesscsessesesessescseesesesseseseeseseseesssessesesessssesseassesesssseeassesesassesasaessassesesaeseeaeseseeseseeneee 12

21 §56073 12

22 § 56107 16

23 §56153 19

24 § 56157(h) 19, 20

25 § 56160 19

26 § 56880 13, 22

27 § 56881 13, 14,22
28 § 56895 21, 22

Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
6
§ 57000 14, 22

§ 57025(e) 19, 20

§ 57075 13, 14,22
§ 57091 13, 14,22
§ 57200 14, 21

§ 57330 24

California Health & Safety Code

§ 13800 12

§ 13806 15, 16

10 California Public Resource Code

11 § 21177 23

12 Title 14 California Code of Regulations

13 § 15320 22, 23

14 § 15378 22

15 § 15061(b)(3) 22

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
7
DEMURRER

Defendant LAFCO and Real Party In Interest County demur to the First Amended Complaint on

the following grounds:

DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 The Court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the causes of action alleged in the First

Amended Complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (a).)

2 The First Amended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

3 There is a defect in the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (d).)

10 DEMURRER TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

11 3 The Court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the First Cause of Action. (Code Civ. Proc.,

12 § 430.10, subd. (a).)
13 4 The First Cause of Action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code

14 Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)
15 5 The First Cause of Action is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)

16 DEMURRER TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

17 6. The Court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the Second Cause of Action. (Code Civ.

18 Proc., § 430.10, subd. (a).)
7
19 The Second Cause of Action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

20 (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

21 8 The Second Cause of Action is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)

22 LAFCO and County’s Demurrer is based on the First Amended Complaint, this Notice, the

23 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Request for Judicial Notice and attached exhibits filed

24 concurrently, the Decaration of Michael King, any additional documents filed herein, and other matters as

25 may be presented at or before the time of the hearing.

26
27
28

Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
8
LAFCO and the County request that this Demurrer be set for hearing on the same calendar as the

Demutrrer being filed by Real Party in Interest Gold Ridge Fire Protection District.

Dated: April 2, 2024 ROBERT H. PITTMAN, County Counsel

By: MichaelA. King
Michael A. King
Attorneys for Defendant
SONOMA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY
FORMATION COMMISSION and
10 Real Party in Interest
COUNTY OF SONOMA
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
9
I INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint seeks to challenge a fire services reorganization in which the

Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) moved territory that had previously

been under the jurisdiction of County Service Area 40 - Fire Services into the jurisdiction of Gold Ridge

Fire Protection District. The First Amended Complaint is untimely and fails to follow any of the

mandatory requirements for a reverse validation action. (Gov’t Code, § 56103; Code Civ. Proc., § 863)

Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. In addition, Plaintiffs’ First Amended

Complaint fails to state a claim and is unintelligible. Because these defects cannot be corrected by good

10 faith amendment, the Court should sustain the demurrer as to the entire First Amended Complaint

11 Complaint without leave to amend.
12 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
13 A. Parties
14 LAFCO: The Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commision is the defendant and
15
respondent in this case. LAFCO is an independent agency created by the the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg
16
Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Gov’t Code, § 56000 er seg. (“the Act’’)). The nature and
17
jurisdiction of LAFCO is aptly summarized in Placer Cty. Local Agency Formation Com. v. Nev. Cty.
18
Local Agency Formation Com. (2006) 135 Cal. App. 4th 793, 797-98 (internal punctuation and citations
19
omitted):
20
LAFCOs oversee local agency boundary changes, including the
21 incorporation and disincorporation of cities, the formation and dissolution of
most special districts, and the consolidation, merger, annexation, and
22
reorganization of cities and special districts. Each county in California has a
23 LAFCO. In California, 58 LAFCOs are working with nearly 4,000
government agencies in 58 counties, 477 incorporated cities, and 3,000-plus
24 special districts. [ |] LAFCOs have been described as watchdogs, guarding
25 ‘against the wasteful duplication of services that results from indiscriminate
formation of new local agencies or haphazard annexation of territory to
26 existing local agencies... [ §] ] LAFCOs review proposals for the formation
of new local government agencies as well as boundary changes for existing
27 agencies. Given the extraordinary number of government agencies, cities,
28 and special districts in the state, it is no surprise that agency boundaries
often do not logically relate to one another, resulting in an overlap of service

Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
10
responsibilities and inefficiencies in service provision. The overarching goal
of LAFCOs is to encourage the orderly formation and extension of
government agencies, while balancing the competing needs in California for
affordable housing, economic opportunities, and the preservation of natural
resources.

The actions that LAFCOs takes with respect to creating agencies, adjusting their services, and

adjusting their boundaries are called a “change of organization,” and more than one “change of

organization” within the same proposal is called a “reorganization.” (Gov’t Code, §§ 56036.5 [defining

“change of organization”], 56073 [defining “reorganization”]) In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs

challenge a reorganization that consisted of the detachment of territory from County Service Area 40 - Fire

10 Services and the annexation of that same territory into the Gold Ridge Fire Protection District.! (Request

11 for Judicial Notice (RJN), Exhibit 1, LAFCO Resolution 2768)

12 Gold Ridge Fire Protection District: The Gold Ridge Fire Protection District is a fire

13 district organized under the Fire Protection District Law of 1987. (Health & Safety Code, § 13800, et seq.)

14 Notwithstanding the caption, Gold Ridge Fire Protection District is a real party in interest in this case and
15 was the applicant in the proposed reorganization. Gold Ridge Fire Protection District annexed (i.e.
16 received) the area that LAFCO detached from County Service Area 40 — Fire Services.
17 Sonoma County: Notwithstanding the caption, Sonoma County is a real party in interest in
18
this case, and administers County Service Area 40 — Fire Services, which provides fire services pursuant
19
to Government Code section 25213(b). Like special districts, a County Service Area is a “district” under
20
the Act, and is subject to LAFCO jurisdiction. (Gov’t Code, § 56036, subd. (b); see generally County
21
Service Area Law, Gov’t Code, § 25210 et seq.)
22
Plaintiffs Frear Stephen Schmid and Astrid Schmid: Petitioners Frear Stephen Schmid
23
and Astrid Schmid are frequent litigants with the County in matters concerning the volunteer Two Rock
24
25
26
27
28
' See Government Code sections 56033 [defining “detachment”] and 56017 [defining “annexation”].

Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
11
Fire Department.” The Two Rock Fire Department was part of the County Service Area 40 territory that

LAFCO annexed into the Gold Ridge Fire Protection District.

Committee for Transparent Government: The Verified First Amended Complaint states

that Committee for Transparent Government is a “California non-profit unincorporated association.” (First

Amended Complaint { 1) It is not clear what is meant by “non-profit unincorporated association,” but

LAFCO and County request judicial notice that no such nonprofit entity exists in California. (RJN, Exhibit

2, IRS and Secretary of State No Results Found for Committee for Transparent Government)

B. Procedural History

LAFCO completed the challenged reorganization of Gold Ridge Fire Protection District in a three
10
step process after two hearings (First Amended Complaint | 6): First, LAFCO approved the proposal in a
11
“resolution making determinations” (Gov’t Code, §§ 56880, 56881); second, LAFCO conducted protest
12
proceedings in which voters and landowners could contest LAFCO’s resolution making determinations,
13
and potentially, if statutory protest thresholds had been met, either trigger an election or the termination of
14
the reorganization (Gov’t Code, §§ 56881, subd. (d), 57075, 57091); and third, LAFCO recorded a
15
Certificate of Completion with the County Recorder that completed the reorganization of the agencies that
16
17 is the subject of this challenge.

18 The particulars of this three-step process are summarized below:

19 Resolution Making Determinations: On April 5, 2023, LAFCO adopted Resolution 2768, which

20 approved Gold Ridge Fire Protection District’s proposal to annex certain territories that had been in

21 County Service Area 40 - Fire Services. (RJN, Exhibit 1, LAFCO Resolution 2768) These territories

22 included “all of the parcels located within County Service Area 40 Incident Response Plan Area 81,
23 Lakeville Volunteer Fire Company, San Antonio Volunteer Fire Company, Willmar Volunteer Fire
24
25 ? See the numerous inter-related concurrent actions filed by Plaintiffs involving the same basic underlying
26 facts arising from the County-approved permitting, construction, occupancy, and operation of the the Two
Rock Fire Department building located at 7599 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma CA : Sonoma County
27 Superior Court Case Nos. SCV-266255; SCV-266731; SCV-270332; SCV-270339; SCV-270568; and
SCV-270771. Plaintiffs have also filed a separate action in U.S. District Court alleging very similar facts
28 and Sonoma County Code violations but seeking different remedies. U.S. District Court (Northern Dist.
Cal.) Case No. No. 3:21-cv-01920 TLT was dismissed; Plaintiffs have appealed that decision.

Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
12
Company, Two Rock Volunteer Fire Company, Bloomfield Volunteer Fire Company, Valley Ford

Volunteer Fire Company, Bodega Volunteer Fire Company, Camp Meeker Volunteer Fire Company, and

Fort Ross Volunteer Fire Company.” (/d. at 4) In compliance with Government Code section 56881(d),

and in order to determine whether Resolution 2768 would (1) be upheld, (2) trigger an election, or (3) be

terminated by a majority protest, LAFCO published and sent notices, and conducted a protest proceeding

pursuant to Part 4 (Chapters 3 and 4) of the Act. (Gov’t Code, § 57000 et seq.)

Protest Proceedings: On June 7, 2023, LAFCO tallied the protests that had been received and

determined they did not meet the 25 percent threshold required by the Act to trigger an election under

Government Code sections 57075 and 57091. (RJN, Exhibit 3, LAFCO Resolution 2774) Accordingly,
10
Resolution 2774 directed LAFCO’s Executive Officer to record a Certification of Completion with the
11
Sonoma County Recorder, effectuating the reorganization. (Id.; Gov’t Code, §§ 56020.5, 56102, 57200)
12
Certificate of Completion: LAFCO staff recorded a Certificate of Completion on June 21, 2023.
13
(RIN, Exhibit 4, Certificate of Completion) LAFCO staff subsequently recorded a Corrected Certificate of
14
Completion on September 19, 2023. (RJN, Exhibit 5, Corrected Certificate of Completion) As the
15
Corrected Certificate of Completion notes, it remedied a clerical error in the parcel list, but did not change
16
17 the terms of the reorganization. (/d.)*

18 Subsequent Action by Gold Ridge Fire Protection District: In reliance upon LAFCO

19 Resolution 2768 and the final approval evidenced by the recorded LAFCO Certificate of Completion,

20 effective July 5, 2023, the Gold Ridge Fire Protection District Board of Directors adopted District

21 Resolution 23/24-01 implementing the LAFCO-approved reorganization and annexation of the former

22 County Service Area 40 territories into the expanded District.
23 This action: Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on October 2, 2023. LAFCO and the County of
24 Sonoma filed a demurrer to the Complaint on December 21, 2023. On February 29, 2024, Plaintiffs filed
25
26 3 The Corrected Certificate of Completion explains: “The completed reorganization has not changed, and
this correction is made nunc pro tunc to Recorder No. 2023027686. A clerical error was made in Exhibit
27 A to Resolution No. 2768. Specifically, a page was inadvertently omitted and the clerical omission is
remedied in the attached Resolution No. 2768 (corrected), dated April 5, 2023, for the reorganization of
28 the Gold Ridge Fire Protection District. In addition, minor errors are corrected in the legal description that
do not change the completed reorganization.” (RJN, Exhibit D, Corrected Certificate of Completion)

Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
13
their First Amended Verified Complaint. The First Amended Verified Complaint adds a challenge to the

validity of the Corrected Certificate of Completion, recorded on September 19, 2023, but does not attempt

to cure the fatal defects of the initial complaint (and invalid summons) discussed in the demurrer.

iil. ARGUMENT

A. Legal Standard for Demurrer

The standards on demurrer are familiar and briefly stated. A defendant may demur when 1) the

court lacks jurisdiction, 2) a complaint or cause of action fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a

cause of action, or 3) a complaint is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10,

subds. (a), (e), (f).) A demurrer tests a complaint’s legal sufficiency, accepting as true all facts properly
10 pled or subject to judicial notice. (Writers Guild of Am., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th
11 475, 477.) However, a court does not assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or
12 law. (Ellenberger v. Espinosa (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.) It disregards allegations contrary to law or
13 judicially noticeable fact. (Planning & Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2010) 180
14 Cal.App.4th 210, 225-226.) Demurrer is appropriate if grounds appear from a pleading’s allegations.
15 (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (a).) Leave to amend is properly denied if amendment would be futile.
16 (Foxborough v. Van Atta (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 217, 230.)
17 B. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction
18
1 Plaintiffs’ Complaint is untimely, and Plaintiffs have not met any of the
19
jurisidictional requirements for a reverse validation action.
20
Pursuant to Government Code section 56103,* Plaintiffs were obligated to file this challenge as a
21
reverse validation action under Code of Civil Procedure section 863; this is the only procedural challenge
22
available for Plaintiffs’ claims:
23
A LAFCO annexation determination is quasi-legislative and, before the
24 annexation is completed (1.¢., final), may be challenged by a petition for a
25 writ of ordinary mandamus brought under Code of Civil Procedure section
1085. (Sierra Club v. San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Com., supra, 21
26 Cal.4th 489, 495; Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13

27
4 See also Gov’t Code § 25210.6(a) and Health & Safety Code § 13806, also requiring validation act
28 procedures to challenge the “validity of the organization” of, respectively, County Service Areas and Fire
Protection Districts.

Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
14
Cal.3d 263, 272 (Bozung) [mandamus will lie to challenge an annexation
before it is final].) [ |] Once a LAFCO annexation determination is
completed, however, its validity may be challenged only by an in rem
proceeding under the validating statutes or by a quo warranto proceeding
filed by the Attorney General. (Hills for Everyone v. Local Agency
Formation Com. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 461, 466 (Hills for Everyone).)
Currently, the requirement for the use of a validating action is set forth in
section 56103, which provides: “An action to determine the validity of any
change of organization, reorganization, or sphere of influence determination
completed pursuant to this division shall be brought pursuant to Chapter 9
(commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.”

(Protect Agric. Land v. Stanislaus Cty. Local Agency Formation Com. (2014) 223 Cal.

10 App. 4th 550, 558, emphasis in original.) The requirement to utilize the validation action

11 procedure for all claims stems from the public importance of LAFCO’s reorganization and

12 the need for procedural certainty:

13 A validation action implements important policy considerations. A central
theme in the validating procedures is speedy determination of the validity of
14
the public agency's action. The text of section 870 and cases which have
15 interpreted the validation statutes have placed great importance on the need
for a single dispositive final judgment. The validating statutes should be
16 construed so as to uphold their purpose, i.e., the acting agency's need to
settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action.
17
18 (Friedland v. City of Long Beach (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 835, 842, internal punctuation and citations

19 omitted, emphasis added.)

20 Plaintiffs had 60 days from June 21, 2023 (the date the Certificate of Completion was recorded) to

21 file their reverse validation action. (Code of Civil Proc., §§ 860, 863; Protect Agric. Land, 223 Cal. App.

22 Ath at 558-559.) The deadline to file this action was August 20, 2023, but Plaintiffs filed their Complaint

23 on October 2, 2023.° Plaintiffs’ Complaint is therefore untimely.

24
25
26
5 Similarly, the actions of the Gold Ridge Fire Protection District in adopting District Resolution 23/24/01
27 on July 5, 2023 are also subject to the 60 day statute of limitations for reverse validation actions. (See
Health & Safety Code § 13806.) Accordingly, the deadline for file this action related to the subsequent
28 actions of the District was September 3, 2023, but Plaintiffs did not file their Complaint until October 2,
2023.

Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
15
In addition, Plaintiffs have served a summons that does not comply with the

procedural requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 861 (requiring publication of

the summons) and 863 (dictating contents of the summons). (Cmty. Redevelopment Agency

v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty. (1967) 248 Cal. App. 2d 164, 178 [ina validation case,
“when jurisdiction is to be obtained by service of summons within a prescribed period of

time by publication of summons or otherwise, the statutory conditions for the service of

summons must also be complied with”’].)

Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction in this case.

2 Plaintiffs’ failure to publish the summons in compliance with Code of Civil
10
Procedure section 863 also requires that the demurrer be sustained.
11
Plaintiffs’ add a new claim in the First Amended Complaint asserting that Corrected
12
Certificate of Completion is “null and void,” that clerical errors cannot be corrected in a
13
Certificate of Completion, and that the effect of the correction is not nunc pro tunc. (First
14
Amended Complaint { 9) The ability to make corrections to errors in a recorded Certificate
15
of Completion flows inherently from the duties imposed on the Executive Officer by
16
17 Government Code section 57200 to effectuate the Commission’s Resolution Making

18 Determinations, as otherwise the action of the Commission would be incorrectly

19 memorialized (and no provision allows a County Recorder to ever “unrecord” a recorded

20 document).° Plaintiffs’ absurd argument would leave the clerical errors uncorrected, and

21 asks the Court to ignore the fact that the Act is “liberally construed to effectuate its

22 purpose.” (Gov’t Code § 56107)
23 Further, even if Plaintiffs’ complaint is deemed timely due to the filing of the
24 correction, Code of Civil Procedure section 863 still requires dismissal. Section 863 states
25 in relevant part: “If the interested person bringing such action fails to complete the
26
publication and such other notice as may be prescribed by the court in accordance with
27
28
® See Gov't Code, Title 3, Division 2, Part 3, Chapter 6 (Recorder), Article 4 (recording), § 27320 et seq

Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
16
Section 861 and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from the filing of his

complaint, the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the motion of the public agency

unless good cause for such failure is shown by the interested person.” Even now, Plaintiffs

have failed to publish their summons.

Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on October 2, 2023. The deadline to file proof

of publication was December 1, 2023. The validation action requirements requiring prompt

publication are not ambiguous. (Protect Agric. Land, 223 Cal. App. 4th at 558.) Plaintiffs

lack any cause whatsoever for not following the required procedures and the demurrer

should be sustained.
10
3. The failure to follow the procedural requirements for a reverse validation also
11
results in a defect in the parties.
12
The required summons in this matter must be directed to “all persons interested in the matter.”
13
(Code Civ. Proc., § 861.1) The failure to follow the validation procedure also results in a fatal defect in
14
the parties to this case. (Cmty. Redevelopment Agency, 248 Cal. App. 2d at 179 [improper validation
15
summons was “fatally defective” for failing to be directed to “all persons interested,” making dismissal a
16
17 “necessity”’].)

18 C. The First Cause and Second Causes of Action fail to state a claim, as Code of

19 Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1094.5 can provide no relief in this case.

20 The First Amended Complaint acknowledges, as it must, that a Certificate of Completion was

21 recorded, which means that the reorganization has been completed. (Gov’t Code § 56102.) The First

22 Cause of Action is procedurally based on Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1094.5. Neither of
23 these statutes can provide relief in this case because the reorganization has been completed. (Protect
24 Agric. Land, 223 Cal. App. 4th at 558-559 [writ of ordinary mandamus only available before the
25 reorganization process is final]; Gov’t Code, §§ 56102, 56103.)
26
27
28

Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
17
D. The First Cause and Second Causes of Action are unintelligible, and fail to

state a claim to the extent they are intelligible.

Although not necessary given the fatal defect explained above, lest any issue of waiver be raised

later, LAFCO and County also base this Demurrer on the fact that all of Plaintiffs’ allegations are

defective.

A complaint must set forth sufficient facts so a defendant may intelligently respond to the charges

against it. (Zumbrun v. University of Southern California (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1, 8.) A demurrer for

uncertainty lies if failing to label the parties and claims renders a complaint so confusing defendant cannot

determine to what he or she must respond. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal. App. 3d
10
135, 139, n. 2.) “[T]he purpose of a complaint is to furnish the defendants with certain definite charges
11
which can be intelligently met. ... The point is that the accuser must place his finger squarely and directly
12
upon whatever dereliction is relied upon.” (Zumbrun, 25 Cal.App.3d at p. 8.)
13
The First Cause and Second Causes ofAction are unintelligible, and fail to state a claim to the
14
extent they are intelligible:
15
First Cause of Action, Count One: Plaintiffs allege a lack of proper notice, and a violation of the
16
17 Government Code. The concrete statutory violations are not alleged, but Plaintiffs’ claim appears to be

18 that the procedure established by the Act itself is unconstitutional.

19 LAFCO provided published notice of both hearings, as required by Government Code sections

20 56157(h) and 56153. (RIN, Exhibit 6 (April 5, 2023 hearing), Exhibit 7 (June 7, 2023 hearing)) Notice
21 was also provided in the agenda for the two open meetings described in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint.

22 (RIN, Exhibit 8 (April 5, 2023 hearing), Exhibit 9 (June 7, 2023 hearing); see Gov’t Code, § 54954.2) As
23 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint acknowledges, and as described in the staff report for the June 7,
24 2023 hearing, land owners were also separately notified of the protest hearing by mail in compliance with
25 Government Code section 57025(e). (RJN, Exhibit 10 (June 7, 2023 hearing staff report)) Government
26
Code section 56160 makes clear that a failure to receive actual notice is not a claim over which this Court
27
has jurisdiction. To the extent that Plaintiffs allege constitutional violations with respect to notice, LAFCO
28
and the County are entitled to know what Plaintiffs allege was required. Plaintiffs’ argument seems to be

Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
18
that actual notice was required because Gold Ridge Fire Protection District’s parcel tax now applies to

new territory. This assertion fails to state a claim. LAFCO’s action was quasi-legislative, not adjudicatory,

and due process did not add anything to the Act’s statutory requirements. (Bookout v. Local Agency

Formation Com. (1975) 49 Cal. App. 3d 383, 386-87 [collecting cases, and summarizing that “the

Legislature could have totally omitted provisions for any notice or hearing” for an annexation because an

annexation is a legislative and not an adjudicatory matter, and due process demands are “inapposite”’].)

Plaintiffs Complaint is foreclosed by constitutional law that has been established since the nineteenth

century. (See Hagar v. Reclamation Dist. No. 108 (1844) 111 U.S. 701, 709.)

First Cause of Action, Count Two: Government Code section 57025 provides the procedures for
10
notices for protest proceedings. It, in combination with section 56157, allows notice by publication “[i]f
11
the total number of notices required to be mailed ... exceeds 1,000.” (Gov’t Code, §§ 56157, sudb. (h),
12
57025, subd. (b)). However, mailed notice to each affected landowner is still required “[i]n the case of a
13
proposed change of organization or reorganization that would result in the extension of any previously
14
authorized special tax or benefit assessment to the affected territory.” (Gov’t Code, § 57025, subd. (e))
15
Plaintiffs allegation appears to be that LAFCO’s compliance with this statutory scheme is “invidious”
16
17 discrimination in favor of the “propertied class” (First Amended Complaint § 20), which Plaintiffs allege

18 implicates equal protection, free speech, and the right to vote. As noted below with respect to the Second

19 Cause of Action, Plaintiffs’ assertions that LAFCO’s reorganization decision triggered an automatic right

20 to vote under the California Constitution are all foreclosed by controlling case law.

21 No protected class or fundamental right is implicated in this case. (Simi Valley Recreation & Park

22 Dist. v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 51 Cal. App. 3d 648, 688 [“No one has a vested right to be
23 either included or excluded from a local governmental unit [citation], and the fixing of territorial
24 boundaries of a municipal corporation will not ordinarily constitute an invasion of federal constitutional
25 rights.””]) At two open hearings, LAFCO followed a statutory procedure that allowed for public debate and
26
contestation. (RJN, Exhibit 11 (minutes of April 5, 2023 LAFCO meeting), Exhibit 12 (minutes of June 7,
27
2023 LAFCO meeting)) Providing additional written notice to landowners who will pay additional
28
charges as a result of a reorganization has a rational basis under the California and Federal Consti

Case Info

Judge

Pardo, Oscar A Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 02, 2024

Case Filing Date

October 02, 2023

County

Parties

ADAMS, WILLIAM L Attorneys for Defendants
Ball, Verne Rhoades Attorneys for Defendants
COMMITTEE FOR TRANSPARENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT Petitioner
COUNTY OF SONOMA Respondent
GOLD RIDGE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Respondent
Schmid, Astrid Petitioner
Schmid, Frear Stephen Petitioner
SCHMID, FREAR STEPHEN Attorney
SONOMA COUNTY LAFCO Respondent
Robert Pittman Attorneys for Defendants
Michael King Attorneys for Defendants
Kristin Horrell Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

No Value: COMMITTEE FOR TRANSPARENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT vs SONOMA COUNTY LAFCO

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties