State Board of Equalization v. Superior Court

Good Law
138 Cal. App. 4th 951·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 556·2006 Daily Journal DAR 4743·42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 116·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3325
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 20, 2006H028833California2,237 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mihara, J.

Real party in interest bamesandnoble.com (BN) filed an action against petitioner State Board of Equalization (Board) in which it sought a refund of state sales and use taxes. The Board filed a motion to transfer the action to superior court in the County of San Francisco, which the trial court denied. The Board seeks a writ of mandate and/or prohibition directing respondent Santa Clara County Superior Court to vacate its order and enter a new order granting the motion. Under Revenue and Taxation Code section 6933, tax refund actions may be brought “in any city or city and county of this state in which the Attorney General has an office.” We conclude that the appropriate venue for this action is in those cities or cities and counties in which the Attorney General maintains an office of legal staff. The Attorney General maintains an office of legal staff in San Francisco, but not in San Jose. Thus, we issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its order denying the Board’s motion to transfer.

I. Statement of Facts

On December 16, 2004, BN brought an action against the Board for the refund of sales and use taxes. BN alleged that venue was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.