Home

Table of Contents

Table of Forms

 Law Journals

A Legal and Business Portal

In an action against a city for allegedly imposing and collecting a general tax on its residents without the voter approval mandated by Proposition 62 (Gov. Code, §§ 53720-53730), when does the statute of limitations begin to run? Defendant, the City of La Habra (the City), contends the statute started to run on the date the City enacted its ordinance authorizing the tax.  Plaintiffs, three taxpayer advocacy groups and three La Habra taxpayers, argue the statute began to run when this court, in Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino (1995) 11 Cal.4th 220 (Guardino), declared Proposition 62 to be constitutional.  In the alternative, plaintiffs argue the limitations period starts to run anew each month when the tax is collected.  The lower courts agreed with the City and held untimely plaintiffs’ action to establish the tax’s invalidity and prevent its continued collection, which action was filed more than three years after the ordinance’s enactment. 

We agree with plaintiffs’ second contention; we conclude, that is, that the City’s continued imposition and collection of the tax is an ongoing violation, upon which the limitations period begins anew with each collection.  We therefore find the action for declaratory judgment and writ of mandate timely; consequently, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the action.

Petitioner Clarence Albertson faces trial under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6000-6609.3 (SVPA or Act)).[1]  In preparation for that trial, the Ventura County District Attorney sought an order directing petitioner to undergo an updated mental health interview and evaluation, and granting the district attorney access to petitioner’s mental health treatment files.  The trial court granted the district attorney’s requests, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that there was no statutory authorization for updated interviews and evaluations, and that the district attorney had no right of access to petitioner’s treatment records. 

            After we granted review to determine whether the district attorney is entitled to updated interviews and evaluations and access to treatment information, the Legislature enacted, and the Governor signed, urgency legislation amending a key provision of the SVPA, section 6603, subdivision (c) (§ 6603(c)).  As explained below, we conclude that this legislation applies to this case and authorizes updated interviews and evaluations, as well as access to treatment records.  In light of the new enactment, we shall vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand the matter to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

Albertson v. Sup. Ct. 6/4/01 SC VCIelaw site