In Malott v. Summerland Sanitary District, published October 19, 2020, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 6 reversed a trial court judgment denying a petition for writ of administrative mandamus. The defendant district, which provides wastewater collection, noticed a public hearing on a service rate increase. The plaintiff, an apartment house owner, did not attend the hearing. The rate increase was approved at the hearing. The plaintiff then filed the administrative mandamus writ petition challenging the rate increase. She alleged she was excused from exhausting the administrative remedy of the hearing because it was an inadequate remedy. She challenged the district's method for calculating rates as violating the state constitution. She filed a motion for judgment that included an expert declaration supporting her contentions. The trial court granted a motion to strike the declaration on the ground that it had not been filed at the public hearing, and therefore was improper extra-record evidence. The court upheld the rate as valid.
The court of appeal ruled that the trial court had erred both in striking the declaration and in denying the petition. Plantier v. Ramona Municipal Water Dist. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 372 ruled that the public hearing required by article XIIID, section 6 of the California Constitution, added by Proposition 218, is an inadequate administrative remedy for challenging the method of calculating service fee allocation among parcels, and therefore does not have to be exhausted before the method is challenged in court. Plantier involved a declaratory relief action. The plaintiff's election to petition for administrative mandamus instead of filing a declaratory relief action does not prevent the plaintiff from challenging the rate calculation method. The formality that the plaintiff styled her lawsuit as an administrative mandamus action does not prevent Plantier from applying. The distinction between declaratory relief and mandamus is not always clear. Where a plaintiff mistakenly files an administrative mandamus petition instead of an ordinary mandamus petition or declaratory relief cause of action, relief will not be denied where the allegations of
the petition are sufficient to support the other two causes of action. Because the petition asked for relief that would be appropriate in a declaratory relief action, the petition should be judged on the substance of its allegations rather than its label. Although administrative mandamus petitions are generally limited to the evidence in the administrative record, to confine petitioners to the record of an inadequate administrative remedy would improperly elevate an exclusionary rule over the right to have a forum to litigate. Further, even in administrative mandamus actions, courts have the discretion to admit extra-record evidence if the criteria are met. Here, the expert declaration was relevant evidence supporting the challenge the plaintiff was entitled to make. The appellate court remanded the action to the trial court to permit both parties to present evidence before the court makes its decision.
Comments