Filed 11/8/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR RAJA DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A162256 v. (Napa County NAPA SANITARY DISTRICT, Super. Ct. No. 19CV000682) Defendant and Respondent; COUNTY OF NAPA, Real Party in Interest. Plaintiffs Raja Development Co., Inc., Cashel, Inc., and Carter Randall Callahan (plaintiffs) are condominium owners who allege, in their third amended complaint, that a sewer service charge collected by defendant Napa Sanitation District (the District) consists of two distinct components—a “capacity fee” and a “use fee”—and that the latter is an unlawful tax. The trial court sustained the District’s demurrer without leave to amend, agreeing with the District that the action is untimely. For the purposes of this appeal, the parties agree that, at least in principle, different statutes of limitations govern challenges to the capacity-fee and use-fee components of the sewer service charge, and that a challenge to the capacity fee is now time- barred. Although the operative complaint expressly does not attack the capacity fee, the District argues that the ordinances authorizing the sewer service charge are inseverable, so the court would have to invalidate the 1 entire charge if plaintiffs prevail. If the only available remedy would invalidate the capacity fee along with the use fee, the District reasons, the lawsuit is untimely even though plaintiffs’ claim challenges only the latter. We are not persuaded. As discussed below, to identify the applicable statute of limitations, we must look to the gravamen of plaintiffs’ claim. The purpose of the severability doctrine is simply to determine the scope of the remedy after a legal infirmity in the ordinance has been established; a finding of inseverability would not alter the nature of plaintiffs’ claim or the rights upon which they sue. Thus, even if the District were correct that severability principles would require the invalidation of the entire sewer service charge—an issue we do not decide—we conclude that the District, rather than plaintiffs, would bear the consequence of its decision to draft the ordinances that way. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. BACKGROUND The District operates a wastewater utility through which it provides wastewater collection and treatment services to its residents.1 Plaintiffs own condominium units located within the District’s jurisdiction. As alleged in plaintiffs’ original complaint, the District has imposed an annual sewer service charge of “1.0 Equivalent Dwelling Unit” (EDU) on townhomes and condominiums since at least 1975, despite failing to demonstrate a “direct and reasonable correlation” between the charge and the actual costs of providing services to townhomes and condominiums. According to the complaint, failing to demonstrate such a correlation converts the charge into an illegally collected special tax in violation of Proposition 13, 1 The operative complaint names the District as the defendant but identifies Napa County as the real party in interest. 2 62, and 218.2 The complaint further alleged that the service charge is an illegal tax because it …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals