Filed 10/7/26 Kedia v. County of Santa Clara CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
GIRDHARI L. KEDIA, H053692
(Santa Clara County
Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 22CV40823)
v.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,
Defendant and Respondent.
THE COURT1
Respondent County of Santa Clara (County) denied in part appellant
Girdhari L. Kedia’s (Kedia) request to reduce the enrolled value of a Los Altos
property he purchased in 2018. Although the County partially reduced the
value, the reduction was not in the full amount requested. Subsequently the
County denied Kedia’s request for a refund in overpayments. Kedia
challenged the administrative determination by filing a complaint for refund
of property taxes in the trial court. The trial court entered judgment in favor
of the County and this timely appeal ensued.
1 Before Danner, Acting P. J., Lie, J., and Wilson, J.
After the record was filed but before briefing commenced, the parties
jointly moved for summary reversal and remand with instruction to return
the matter for further administrative review. We grant the motion and
reverse the judgment pursuant to the stipulation of the parties.
I. DISCUSSION
In their joint motion, the parties request that we summarily reverse
the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court with directions to
“return the administrative valuation dispute to the assigned [v]alue [h]earing
[o]fficer for a new hearing consistent with this stipulation. [¶] At the new
hearing, the [v]alue [h]earing [o]fficer shall receive and consider the three
appraisal reports previously offered by [a]ppellant, including their underlying
facts, adjustments, analyses, and conclusions, and shall receive the testimony
of any primary author of those reports if offered. Both parties may present
evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and be heard under
otherwise applicable law and procedure.”
The parties’ joint motion supports the conclusion that a summary
reversal pursuant to stipulation is appropriate under the facts of this case
and the law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).) For the reasons stated
in the motion, the court finds that there is no possibility that the interests of
nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal. This is a
dispute over the property tax assessment of a privately owned home. The
basis for the parties’ request is limited to the exclusion of evidence submitted
in support of Kedia’s request at the administrative hearing. It does not
implicate the County’s tax assessment policy or other matters of public
concern.
Although summary reversal of the judgment does not resolve the
dispute between the parties but instead anticipates remand to the
2
administrative level for a new hearing, summary reversal will still save
private, public and judicial resources. Summary reversal will obviate the
need for briefing by the parties and review of the record and further
consideration by this court. The public interest is served by a speedy
resolution of a dispute between a public entity and a taxpayer that conserves
both judicial and public resources.
Kedia’s principal complaint is that the hearing officer erred in
excluding expert valuation testimony. In its order, the trial court found that
substantial evidence supported the hearing officer’s decision and, to the
extent any error occurred, the error was harmless. Because the trial court’s
order does not discuss the parties’ contentions at trial, nor state reasons for
its findings, and because briefing has not commenced in this court, we are not
in a position to evaluate the merits of the appeal. (Muccianti v. Willow Creek
Care Center (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 13, 22–23.) However, in their joint
motion, the parties do not request reversal based on trial court error. Nor do
they request a disposition that results in an automatic tax benefit to Kedia.
Instead, they agree simply that the matter should go back to the hearing
officer to consider the expert testimony that was excluded in the original
hearing.
Even though we cannot say that the prosecution of the appeal would
result in a reversal of the judgment, because the parties agree that a new
administrative hearing is needed to consider all the evidence, including
evidence previously excluded, the request for reversal and remand is
reasonable. (See Union Bank of California v. Braille Institute of America
(2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1330 (Union Bank) [holding the absence of
reversible error is not a bar to the acceptance of a stipulated reversal].)
3
The County’s decision to conserve public resources by limiting appellate
review outweighs the risk that the availability of a stipulated reversal will
reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement. We do not know whether
settlement was discussed prior to trial or why this matter did not resolve
earlier. However, just because the County did not previously agree to a new
hearing should not preclude such agreement now. Litigating this matter in
the appellate court to a final disposition would require significant additional
expenditure of public resources. By agreeing to return this matter to the
administrative level, those public resources will be preserved.
The benefit of a public entity limiting unnecessary litigation also
outweighs the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of
a judgment. No condemnation of the judgment is implied by the request for
stipulated reversal here. The parties do not seek a negotiated merits
judgment nor a guaranteed valuation of the subject property and accept the
uncertainty of a new hearing. This disposition limits the risk that a party
may nullify an unfavorable result by private agreement. Expeditious
reversal to avoid further appellate litigation, where a public entity and a
taxpayer agree that a new hearing on a complete evidentiary record is fair,
and will enhance public trust in the courts, not erode it. (See Union Bank,
supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 1331.)
II. DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed pursuant to the stipulation of the parties.
The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to return the matter
to the administrative body for further proceedings pursuant to the stipulation
of the parties. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. The
remittitur shall issue forthwith.
4
