CITY OF FILLMORE VS. OFFICE OF TAX APPEALS ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Friday, October 10, 2025, Line 1 [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling]. RESPONDENTS OFFICE OF TAX APPEALS, MYRIAM BOUAZIZ, CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION, AND NICK MADUROS' DEMURRER to Amended PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/ PROHIBITION/ CERTIFICATION.

Respondents and Defendants Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) and Myriam Bouaziz and Defendants California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) and Nick Maduros' demurrer to all three causes of action in the first amended petition for administrative writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief filed by petitioner and plaintiff City of Fillmore (City) is sustained as to all three causes of action without leave to amend.

Ms. Bouaziz's demurrer to the first cause of action for administrative mandate fails because she is not involved in the decision making process of the OTA. Petitioner's asserted sole basis for including Ms. Bouaziz in the first cause of action is that she has the responsibility to assign a panel of administrative law judges in the event that a panel is needed due to the reversal of the OTA Opinion challenged in the first cause of action. Yet the City does not allege, nor could it credibly allege, that Ms. Bouaziz has refused or will refuse to assign a panel if one was needed due to the reversal of the OTA Opinion.

To the extent that the City's second and third causes of action for injunctive and declaratory relief are based on the OTA Opinion, those causes of action fail because the OTA Opinion may only be challenged by a writ of administrative mandate. To the extent that the City's second and third causes of action challenge a decision of the CDTFA that occurred prior to the final administrative decision reviewed in the OTA Opinion, those causes of action fail because those prior decisions of the CDTFA are interim decisions that are not reviewable apart from review of the OTA Opinion and must be reviewed, if at all, by a writ of administrative mandate directed to the OTA decision.

Because it is not reasonably possible for the City to remediate the deficiencies in its first, second, and third causes of action, the demurrers to those causes of action are sustained without leave to amend.

After this ruling, the only remaining claim is the City's first cause of action for an administrative writ of mandate against the OTA. If it wishes to do so, the City is granted leave to file a second amended petition to add CDTFA as a real party in interest. [End of part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling]. =(301/HEK) | |