Crawley v. City of Oakland

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 18, 2019
• Docket: 3:19-cv-05433
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARCUS J CRAWLEY, Case No. 19-cv-05433-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS; AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 10 CITY OF OAKLAND, MOTION TO STRIKE 11 Defendant. Docket Nos. 12, 18

12 13 14 Plaintiff Marcus Crawley has filed suit against the City of Oakland (“City”).1 Currently 15 pending before the Court is the City’s motion to dismiss and Mr. Crawley’s related motion to 16 strike. Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court finds the 17 motions suitable for disposition without oral argument and thus VACATES the hearing on the 18 motion. The Court hereby GRANTS the motion to dismiss and DENIES in part the motion to 19 strike. 20 I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 21 Although the complaint is not a model of clarity, Mr. Crawley has, in his opposition to the 22 pending motion to dismiss, given further details explaining the basis of his lawsuit. Taken 23 together, the complaint and opposition brief indicate as follows: (1) in November 2016, the City 24 voters passed a bond measure known as Measure KK; (2) Mr. Crawley sued the City in state court 25 challenging Measure KK but, ultimately, was not successful in that litigation, including through 26 the appeals process; (3) his current lawsuit – in federal court – is predicated on the claim that the 27 1 state courts (both superior and appellate) failed to address a specific argument he made before 2 them regarding the measure and therefore the state courts deprived him of his due process rights. 3 See, e.g., Compl. at 4 (“The [Measure] KK Cause of Action has not received a due process 4 hearing.”); Opp’n at 4 (“The Court Order SKIPPED the Decision on Petition’s First Cause of 5 Action.”); Opp’n at 11 (“The state Court Order/Judgement failed to decide . . . the issue . . . .”). 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 The City initially moved to dismiss Mr. Crawley’s complaint on two grounds: (1) the 8 Rooker-Feldman doctrine and (2) res judicata. After Mr. Crawley filed his opposition and 9 clarified the basis of his complaint, the City narrowed its argument in favor of dismissal to the 10 Rooker-Feldman doctrine.2 11 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is based on Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 12 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). “[T]he 13 Rooker-Feldman doctrine . . . , in general terms, prevents ‘a party losing in state court . . . from 14 seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States 15 district court.’” Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 611 (9th Cir. 2007).

16 Essentially, the doctrine bars “state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district 17 court proceedings commenced” from asking district courts to review and reject those judgments. Absent express statutory authorization, 18 only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to reverse or modify a state court judgment. The clearest case for dismissal based on the 19 Rooker-Feldman doctrine occurs when “a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and 20 seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that decision . . . .”

22 2 Presumably, the City no longer asserts res judicata because the current federal complaint – as clarified by Mr. Crawley – challenges the state courts’ actions which took place after he filed suit 23 in state court. See L.A. Branch NAACP v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist., 750 F.2d 731, 739 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The scope of litigation is framed by the complaint at the time it is filed. The rule that a 24 judgment is conclusive as to every matter that might have been litigated ‘does not apply to new rights acquired pending the action which might have been, but which were not, required to be 25 litigated.’”); FMC Corp. v. Up-Right, Inc., 816 F. Supp. 1455, 1461 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (“Res Judicata attaches only to claims available at the time of filing the original complaint.”); see also 26 Bauerle v. City of Tucson, 234 F. App'x 607, 608 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Identity of claims is not satisfied for Bauerle's claims regarding three issues . . . . Claims regarding each of these issues 27 arise out of separate transactional nuclei of facts that did not exist at the time Bauerle filed her 1 Id. at 613. 2 Because it was invoking the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the City asked the Court to take 3 judicial notice of the state court rulings that had been issued, both superior and appellate. When 4 Mr. Crawley filed his opposition to the City’s motion, he did not object to the request for judicial 5 notice or otherwise contest the admissibility of the state court decisions. However, after the City 6 filed its reply, in which it narrowed its focus to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Mr. Crawley filed 7 the pending motion to strike, in which he argues, inter alia, that the Court cannot consider the 8 (unpublished) California Court of Appeal’s decision on his state court petition. 9 This motion to strike is denied. Contrary to what Mr. Crawley argues, the state court 10 decision is not irrelevant. Mr. Crawley is challenging the state courts’ actions, claiming a failure 11 to rule on an issue that he raised with the courts. Therefore, the Court must necessarily understand 12 what the state court rulings were. In addition, the City has raised a Rooker-Feldman defense. 13 Thus, again, the Court must necessarily understand what the state court rulings were. Cf. Fed. R. 14 Civ. P. 26(b) (providing that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter 15 that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense”). 16 Mr. Crawley also contends that the state court decision is hearsay. But hearsay is defined 17 as an out-of-court statement that “a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter 18 asserted in the statement.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(2) (emphasis added). Here, the City is not asking 19 the Court to accept the truth of the matters asserted in the state court decision (e.g., the correctness 20 of the state court’s analysis). Rather, the City is simply asking the Court to consider what the state 21 court held, regardless of whether that holding was correct. Cf. Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa 22 USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (taking judicial notice of briefs and a hearing 23 transcript filed in another lawsuit “[t]o determine what issues were actually litigated” in that 24 lawsuit). Compare Bertuglia v. City of N.Y., 133 F. Supp. 3d 608, 631 n.14 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) 25 (stating that, “[b]ecause Judge Zweibel's opinions are hearsay and no hearsay exception applies, 26 the opinions are inadmissible on this motion for the truth of whether there was sufficient probable 27 cause for the first or second indictments” and “whether there was prosecutorial misconduct”; but 1 plaintiffs”). The Court therefore may consider the state appellate court order (as well as the state 2 superior court order). The record before the Court thus reflects as follows. 3 Mr. Crawley initiated his state court action – a petition for a writ of mandamus – in 4 February 2017. See Cal. AG RJN, Ex. 1 (petition). In his petition, he asserted several causes of 5 action against, inter alia, the City. (The California Attorney General was named as a real party in 6 interest.) 7 In the first cause of action, Mr. Crawley claimed that Measure KK violated the California 8 Constitution because: 9 • the California Constitution “guarantees property owners the right to vote on all 10 property taxes,” Cal. AG RJN, Ex. 1 (Pet. ¶ 21); see also Cal. Const. art. 13C, § 11 2(c) (providing that “[n]o local government may impose, extend, or increase any 12 special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a 13 two-thirds vote”); 14 • Measure KK “only stated the $600 million cost of the . . . Bond” and did not 15 “mention . . . the related property tax” that would be used to repay the bond in the 16 “‘Ballot Label’” or “‘Ballot Title’”; and 17 • Measure KK also did not state “the tax amount . . . in the ‘Title and Summary’ or in 18 ‘The Full Ballot Measure.’” Cal. AG RJN, Ex. 1 (Pet. ¶¶ 20, 24). 19 According to Mr. Crawley, “the one actual statement of the tax cost” – approximately $1.2 million 20 – was “buried . . . on page 4 [of the voter pamphlet] in a field of other numbers in the ‘Tax Rate 21 Statement,’ where the voters were least likely to read it.” Cal. AG RJN, Ex. A (Pet. ¶ 23). 22 In the third cause of action, Mr. Crawley asserted that California Election Code § 9404 is 23 unconstitutional. Section 9404 is a part of Chapter 5 of the Election Code, titled “Bond Issues.” 24 Section 9400 provides that the “chapter applies to all bond issues proposed by a county, city, 25 district, or other political subdivision, . . . the security for which constitutes a lien on the property 26 for ad valorem taxes within the jurisdiction and the proposal for which is required to be submitted 27 to the voters for approval.” Cal. Elec. Code § 9400. Section 9401 provides that, “[i]n connection 1 sample ballot for the bond election.” Id. § 9401(a). Certain information is required to be included 2 in the statement – e.g., “[t]he best estimate . . . of the average annual tax rate that would be 3 required to be levied to fund that bond issue” and “[t]he best estimate . . . of the total debt service, 4 including the principal and interest, that would be required to be repaid if all the bonds are issued 5 and sold.” Id. Finally, § 9404 – the statute contested by Mr. Crawley – provides that “[t]he 6 Legislature declares that the essence of compliance with this chapter [on bond issues] is good faith 7 in presenting to voters the most accurate available information for their use in effecting 8 comparisons and exercising judgment in casting their ballots.” Cal. Elec. Code § 9404. 9 According to Mr. Crawley, § 9404 is unconstitutional because, “[e]ven though Oakland apparently 10 complied with Election Code § 9401, the voters were deprived of their constitutional right to vote 11 on the tax” and so “[t]he conclusion must be that Election Code § 9401 conflicts with Article 13C 12 § 2(d) [of the California Constitution] and is therefore unconstitutional.” Cal. AG RJN, Ex. 1 (Pet. 13 ¶ 34). 14 In response to Mr. Crawley’s petition, the City and the California Attorney General filed 15 demurrers. In May 2017, the state superior court sustained the demurrers as to both the first and 16 third causes of action. The superior court noted first that Measure KK had been “presented to 17 voters and passed by the voters in November 2016. As a result, the court will disturb the results of 18 the election only if the ballot materials are ‘so misleading and inaccurate that constitutional due 19 process requires invalidation of the election.’” Cal. AG RJN, Ex. 2 (Order at 1). 20 Moving on to the first cause of action asserted in the petition, the superior court stated:

21 The City disclosed that Measure KK was a tax. The ballot materials state “The City would impose a tax based on the value of the real 22 property and improvements within the City to pay the principal and interest on the bonds.” Measure KK was submitted to the voters and 23 the measure passed by two-thirds vote. The petition does not identify any misstatements or omissions that are “so misleading and 24 inaccurate that constitutional due process requires invalidation of the election.” 25 26 Cal. AG RJN, Ex. 2 (Order at 2). 27 As for the third cause of action, the superior court found 2(d) and Elections Code 9401-9404. The former is a requirement 1 that there be a vote and the latter concerns requirements for disclosures related to a vote. Assuming that they concerned the 2 same subject matter, there is no facial conflict – the Election Code states requirements that the legislature decided were reasonable for 3 permitting an informed vote. . . . There is no unconstitutionality in Elections Code 9401-9404 that “clearly, positively, and 4 unmistakably appears.” 5 Cal. AG RJN, Ex. 2 (Order at 4). 6 Subsequently, Mr. Crawley appealed the superior court’s decision. The state appellate 7 court affirmed. On the first cause of action, the appellate court acknowledged that “[t]he summary 8 description of Measure KK printed on the ballot card and repeated at the beginning of the 9 information about the measure in the voter pamphlet” did not mention that Measure KK would 10 impose a tax. Crawley v. City of Oakland, No. A154348, 2019 WL 1760765, at *3 (Cal. Ct. App. 11 April 22, 2019).

12 But that does not answer whether the ballot materials complied with Article XIII C. They did. 13 Article XIII C, section 2, subdivision (d) requires that special taxes 14 must be submitted to the electorate for approval by a two-thirds vote. The taxes to be imposed as a result of Measure KK were 15 plainly disclosed in the bond measure summary, the city attorney's analysis, the city auditor's analysis, and the tax rate statement in the 16 voter information pamphlet. Indeed, as the City observes, “[l]iterally every page of the ballot materials... contain[s] references 17 to Measure KK's tax, tax rate, or property tax, and the proposed Measure was included in the ballot materials.” The conclusion is 18 inescapable that taxes associated with Measure KK were appropriately submitted to the electorate. 19 Crawley cites (and we have found) no authority that supports his 20 claim the City was constitutionally required to explicitly state that Measure KK would impose a tax and disclose the total debt service 21 in the ballot summary and ballot label. Nor does he or could he plausibly claim the information provided to the voters in the 22 analyses by the city attorney, the city auditor and the city administrator was incomplete or misleading. 23 The petition alleged the City “buried” the amount of the total debt 24 service in the auditor's tax rate statement, but that allegation failed to raise a plausible due process claim. “Determination of how much 25 process is due in a local, direct decisionmaking context – where the complained-of irregularities consist of omissions, inaccuracies or 26 misleading statements in the ballot materials – will depend on whether the materials, in light of other circumstances of the election, 27 were so inaccurate or misleading as to prevent the voters from Rate Statement. Voters reading the ballot materials would readily 1 locate that figure. 2 Id. 3 On the third cause of action, the appellate court rejected Mr. Crawley’s contention that 4 Election Code § 9404 conflicts with Article 13C of the California Constitution

5 “because it claims to provide the ‘most accurate (tax) information’ to the voters even when an agency fails to include any tax 6 information on the ballot card.” . . . As we explained in addressing the first cause of action, nothing in article XIII C requires that the 7 tax rate or total debt service must be stated on the ballot label. As the trial court correctly found, the constitutional provision “is a 8 requirement that there be a vote and [sections 9401 through 9404] concern[ ] requirements for disclosures related to a vote. Assuming 9 that they concerned the same subject matter, there is no facial conflict – the Election Code states requirements that the legislature 10 decided were reasonable for permitting an informed vote.” 11 Id. at *4 (emphasis in original). 12 Following the appellate court’s decision, Mr. Crawley petitioned the California Supreme 13 Court for relief, but his petition for review was denied in July 2019. See Cal. AG RJN, Ex. 4 14 (order). 15 III. DISCUSSION 16 As noted above, Mr. Crawley’s complaint herein is that the state courts failed to rule on the 17 specific issue that he raised to them during the state court proceedings and thus they violated his 18 right to due process. As to what was specific issue the state courts failed to rule on, Mr. Crawley 19 identifies the issue in his papers as the following: the failure of the City to disclose in the ballot or 20 bond measure summary the amount of the tax (i.e., as opposed to the fact that there would be a 21 tax). See, e.g., Opp’n at 5 (stating that the “legal issue has always been ‘The City must reveal the 22 amount of the special tax (i.e. ‘that tax’) to the voters on the Ballot Card Statement’”); Opp’n at 7 23 (stating that the “legal issue is that the amount of ‘That Tax’ must be stated on the Measure’s 24 Ballot Card/Summary Statement”); Opp’n at 12 (stating that the City “might quibble that the 25 Petition’s First Cause of Action only mentioned the Measure KK ‘Title & Summary’ rather than 26 the ‘Ballot Card Statement’” but asserting that the two are the same “word for word”; “[t]he issue 27 of the First Cause of Action was the statement that the voters vote on, not the title, label or 1 The problem for Mr. Crawley is that, even if the state superior court did not address this 2 specific issue, the state appellate court did. In fact, the appellate court explicitly rejected the 3 argument. See, e.g., Crawley, 2019 WL 1760765, at *3 (“Crawley cites (and we have found) no 4 authority that supports his claim the City was constitutionally required to explicitly state that 5 Measure KK would impose a tax and disclose the total debt service in the ballot summary and 6 ballot label.”). 7 In light of that fact, the relief Mr. Crawley seeks is to reverse the California Court of 8 Appeal’s express ruling on a specific issue, and thus Rooker-Feldman clearly applies. In 9 Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888 (9th Cir. 1986), the plaintiffs had sued in 10 federal court on the basis that a state court judgment finding them liable for defaming a person 11 was unconstitutional because the alleged defamatory statements constituted religious speech 12 protected by the First Amendment. See id. at 889. The Ninth Circuit held that Rooker-Feldman 13 barred the federal suit because the state court had “considered and rejected the plaintiff’s argument 14 that the allegedly defamatory statements were protected.” Id. at 892 (adding that “[i]t would be 15 impossible for the federal court to review in the abstract the plaintiff’s constitutional challenge to 16 the defamation verdict”). The same principle applies here. 17 The Court therefore grants the City’s motion to dismiss based on Rooker-Feldman. As to 18 the remaining issues raised in Mr. Crawley’s motion to strike, they have no impact on the Court’s 19 analysis above and are therefore moot.3 Finally, for purposes of clarity, the Court grants Mr. 20 Crawley’s request to file a sur-reply, see Docket No. 20 (motion), but the arguments he makes 21 therein do not alter the Court’s analysis above. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26

27 3 In the motion, Mr. Crawley also asked that the Court strike (1) a reference that the City made in 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the City’s motion to dismiss is granted. The dismissal is with 3 || prejudice because Rooker-Feldman bars Mr. Crawley’s lawsuit. Given Mr. Crawley’s opposition 4 brief, it is evident that there is no amendment he can make to avoid the bar. 5 The Clerk of the Court is instructed to enter a final judgment in accordance with this order 6 and close the file in this case. 7 This order disposes of Docket Nos. 12 and 18. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: November 18, 2019 12

== ED M. CHEN 14 United States District Judge 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28