Sakach v. County of Marin

Opinion

Filed 9/14/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

TIM SAKACH, as Trustee, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, A175648

v. COUNTY OF MARIN, (Marin County Super. Ct. No. CV0003230)

Defendant and Respondent.

Pro per plaintiff and appellant Tim Sakach received an adverse administrative decision in a code enforcement action brought by defendant and respondent County of Marin (County). On his last day to appeal the decision, Sakach submitted a notice of appeal to the Marin County Superior Court for filing. Seven days later, the court’s clerk rejected the filing because Sakach did not attach a copy of the administrative decision to his notice of appeal. Sakach filed a second notice of appeal with the decision attached that was ultimately accepted but file-stamped with a date after the appeal deadline. The County filed a demurrer, arguing that the appeal was untimely. The superior court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and declined to take judicial notice of the clerk’s rejection notice. Sakach appeals, contending the court erred by: (1) rejecting his first notice of appeal; and (2) sustaining the demurrer. We agree with both contentions and reverse.

2

I. BACKGROUND

In 2023, the County initiated a code enforcement action involving a parcel of land owned by Sakach in his capacity as a trustee. On December 20, an administrative law judge (ALJ) ordered Sakach to abate the violations and pay enforcement and abatement costs and civil penalties. The decision also included the following statement: “The decision of the hearing officer shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to the provisions of section 53069.4[, subdivision] (b)(1) of the Government Code only if a notice of appeal pursuant to that section is filed in the municipal court [sic] of Marin County within twenty days after service of the final administrative order or decision of the hearing officer. . . .”

On January 9, 2024, the 20th day after service of the ALJ’s decision, Sakach, who was in pro per, submitted a document titled “Notice of Administrative Appeal” to the superior court for filing. That same day, Sakach received an email stating that his submission was received by the court and under review.

Seven days later, Sakach received a rejection notice from the superior court’s clerk stating that his January 9, 2024 filing was rejected because a “[c]opy of [the] decision must be submitted with [the] notice of appeal.” The rejection notice identified the court, bore the court’s seal, identified the notice of appeal as the rejected document, identified Sakach as the filer, stated that the rejected filing was received on January 9, 2024, and included the same administrative case number as the ALJ’s decision. The rejection notice did not, however, cite anything to support the stated ground for rejection.

On January 17, 2024, Sakach submitted a second notice of appeal for filing. This notice of appeal was identical to the one he submitted for filing on January 9, except for the attachment of the administrative decision. This

3

time, however, his notice of appeal was accepted. Although the superior court only notified Sakach of this acceptance several months later in June, it file- stamped the notice of appeal using the date of filing, January 17.

The County filed a demurrer, contending that the appeal was untimely based on the January 17, 2024 filing date of Sakach’s second notice of appeal. Sakach opposed the demurrer. In support, he attached documents relating to his January 9 submission, including the clerk’s rejection notice. The County did not object to the documents Sakach submitted. The superior court sustained the County’s demurrer without leave to amend, finding that Sakach’s appeal was untimely because he filed his notice of appeal over 20 days after he had been served with the administrative decision. In making this finding, the court declined to consider the documents Sakach attached to his opposition. Noting that Sakach did not file a request for judicial notice, it nonetheless acknowledged it could take judicial notice of those documents on its own motion. The court, however, concluded that the documents (including the clerk’s rejection notice) were not subject to judicial notice because they were not “court records . . . .” Instead, they were “documents submitted to a court without being accepted and made a matter of record, or . . . mere communications from the court.” In reaching this conclusion, the court relied solely on Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d). The court further reasoned that even if it could take judicial notice of the documents, “it could not judicially notice the portions of Sakach’s declaration giving them necessary context.” The court thereafter entered a judgment of dismissal, which Sakach timely appealed.

4

II. DISCUSSION

Sakach contends that the superior court erred by: (1) rejecting his notice of appeal submitted on January 9, 2024; and (2) refusing to take judicial notice of the documents attached to his opposition relating to his January 9 submission and sustaining the demurrer without considering those documents. Applying de novo review (see Topanga and Victory Partners v. Toghia (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 775, 779–780 [“a pure question of law” is subject to independent review]; Com. for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 42 [sustaining of demurrer is reviewed de novo]), we agree with both contentions.

A. The Rejection of Sakach’s January 9, 2024 Notice of Appeal Because there is no legal requirement that a notice of appeal attach the administrative decision appealed from, we find that the clerk of the superior court erred in rejecting Sakach’s first notice of appeal.

Recently, the Fifth District addressed a similar issue to the one presented here. In Gharraee v. Trader Joe’s Company (Aug. 24, 2026, F091184) __ Cal.App.5th __ [pp. 2–5] [2026 Cal.App. Lexis 509], the appellant attempted to electronically file a notice of appeal, but the trial court rejected it because the court did not accept notices of appeal by electronic filing pursuant to a local rule. The trial court eventually filed the appellant’s notice of appeal 28 days after the appeal deadline had passed. (Ibid.) The respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the notice of appeal was untimely. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal denied the motion, finding that the trial court’s local rule conflicted with state law and was therefore invalid. (Id. at pp. 13–18.) In doing so, the Court of Appeal noted that “courts have held that a litigant’s failure to comply with a local rule is

5

not a valid basis for the court to refuse to file a document which has a jurisdictional deadline, such as a complaint.” (Id. at p. 15.)

The same reasoning applies here. Nothing in Government Code section 53069.4 requires an appellant to attach a copy of the administrative decision to his notice of appeal. Instead, that subdivision only requires “filing an appeal to be heard by the superior court” “within 20 days after service of the final administrative order or decision of the local agency.” (Gov. Code, § 53069.4, subd. (b)(1), italics added.) 1 Moreover, Government Code section 53069.4 places the onus on the superior court to request “the local agency’s file” — which would necessarily include the challenged decision — and on the local agency to forward that file to the court within 15 days. (Id., § 53069.4, subd. (b)(2).) Indeed, both notice of appeal forms Sakach submitted make this clear: “Upon receipt of this notice, the local agency shall be responsible for sending the complete file to the Marin County Superior Court within 15 days.” (Boldface and italics in original.) Thus, requiring that the notice of appeal attach the administrative decision not only

1 Government Code section 53069.4, subdivision (b)(1) states in full:

“Notwithstanding Section 1094.5 or 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, within 20 days after service of the final administrative order or decision of the local agency is made pursuant to an ordinance enacted in accordance with this section regarding the imposition, enforcement, or collection of the administrative fines or penalties, a person contesting that final administrative order or decision may seek review by filing an appeal to be heard by the superior court, where the same shall be heard de novo, except that the contents of the local agency’s file in the case shall be received in evidence. A proceeding under this subdivision is a limited civil case. A copy of the document or instrument of the local agency providing notice of the violation and imposition of the administrative fine or penalty shall be admitted into evidence as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. A copy of the notice of appeal shall be served in person or by first-class mail upon the local agency by the contestant.”

6

conflicts with state law, it exalts form over substance. “ ‘[I]t is, and has been, the law of this state that notices of appeal are to be liberally construed so as to protect the right of appeal if it is reasonably clear what [the] appellant was trying to appeal from, and where the respondent could not possibly have been misled or prejudiced.’ ” (In re Joshua S. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 261, 272.)

Indeed, the superior court’s ground for rejecting Sakach’s January 9, 2024 notice of appeal is even more suspect than the ground cited by the trial court in Gharraee. The clerk’s rejection notice identified, and we found, no local rule, much less any other authority, requiring that the administrative decision be attached to a notice of appeal. Adding arbitrary requirements with no basis in the law in order to deprive parties of their right to appeal violates “ ‘the strong public policy favoring the hearing of appeals on the merits.’ ” (K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 875, 882.) Accordingly, Sakach’s original notice of appeal should not have been rejected for filing by the superior court.

B. The Demurrer There is no dispute that if the superior court had filed Sakach’s first notice of appeal on January 9, 2024, as it should have, then this appeal would have been timely. Thus, the only remaining issue is whether the court erred in refusing to take judicial notice of the documents submitted with Sakach’s opposition to the demurrer, which would have established that the court erroneously refused to file his January 9 notice of appeal. We find that it did.

As a threshold matter, we decline to find that Sakach forfeited his challenge to the superior court’s refusal to take judicial notice of the documents attached to his opposition below. The court correctly stated that it could consider records subject to judicial notice. (Thorburn v. Dept. of Corrections (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1287–1288.) It also correctly

7

construed Sakach’s attachment of those documents to his opposition as a request for judicial notice and ruled on that request. (See Lister v. Bowen (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 319, 323, fn. 1 [construing exhibit attached to the respondent’s brief as a request for judicial notice].) The County was well aware that Sakach was asking the court to consider those documents by attaching them to his opposition and did not object in its reply. Under these circumstances, we decline to find forfeiture. (See In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293 [“application of the forfeiture rule is not automatic”], superseded by statute on another ground as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953, 962.)

Turning to the merits, we find that the superior court erred in refusing to take judicial notice of the documents submitted by Sakach because they “were not ‘court records’ under Evidence Code [section] 452, subdivision (d).” Contrary to the court’s assertion, the rejection notice was indeed a court record subject to judicial notice. 2 (See Bai v. Yip (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 188, 194 [“We grant judicial notice of the trial court clerk’s rejection message as a record of the court”].) We also do not find persuasive the court’s conclusion that it would have had to consider Sakach’s declaration, which was not judicially noticeable, to give that notice “necessary context.” Having construed the attachments to Sakach’s declaration as a request for judicial notice, the court could also have considered Sakach’s declaration for the limited purpose of “listing the specific items for which notice is requested” under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(l). In any event, the rejection notice was sufficient, by itself, to establish that it was a court record because

2 Because the rejection notice was a court record, we do not reach

whether the rejection notice was also judicially noticeable as an “[o]fficial act[ ] of the . . . judicial department[ ].” (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c).)

8

it: (1) identified the court; (2) bore the court’s seal; (3) identified the notice of appeal as the rejected document; (4) identified Sakach as the filer; (5) stated that the rejected filing was received on January 9, 2024; and (6) included the same administrative case number as the January 17, 2024 notice of appeal that the court accepted for filing.

Because the superior court should have taken judicial notice of the rejection notice, it should have also applied the rule that “a paper is deemed filed when it is deposited with the clerk with directions to file the paper.” (Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 778.) Because the clerk had “no proper basis for rejecting” Sakach’s first notice of appeal, that notice should have been deemed filed on January 9, 2024. (Ibid.) And because the notice of appeal would have been timely if it had been deemed filed on that date, the demurrer should have been overruled.

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is reversed with instructions to deem Sakach’s notice of appeal filed on January 9, 2024. Sakach is awarded his costs on appeal.

CHOU, J.

WE CONCUR.

JACKSON, P. J. SIMONS, J.

9

A175648/ Sakach v. County of Marin

Trial Court: Superior Court of the County of Marin

Trial Judge: Sheila Shah Lichtblau

Counsel: Tim Sakach, as Trustee and in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Brian E. Washington, County Counsel, Jacy C. Dardine, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.