Plaintiffs contend that Code of Civil Procedure §
631—which requires the posting of nonrefundable fees to preserve the right to
jury trial—is unconstitutional because it’s a tax that wasn’t approved by a
legislative supermajority. So they sued the state for declaratory relief. The trial court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding
that the state wasn’t the proper defendant in such an action.
In California, the general rule is in a case challenging the constitutionality of a statute is that you
don’t sue the state, the governor, or the legislature. Instead, the proper defendant is the
public officer or agency tasked with administering the statute. The idea is
that that is who has the most significant institutional interest in the final
outcome of the litigation. In a case challenging court funding, that agency
would be the Judicial Council, which oversees the budget for the state judiciary.
Problem is, plaintiffs already sued the Judicial Council,
but (for reasons unexplained) dismissed it with
prejudice at some point earlier in the case. So their story ends here.
Affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment