First District Court Rules California’s Validation Law Is Mandatory and Jurisdictional in Reverse Validation Actions

On appeal to the First District Court, plaintiffs argued that the city had waived the validation requirements by litigating the case and that their actions were timely. The court held that the validation statutes were mandatory and jurisdictional for challenges to water rates, and plaintiffs’ failure to comply with statutory procedures.

Background

In Toy v. City & County of San Francisco (City) adopted a resolution in May 2023 increasing water rates for the period July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2026. Before adopting the resolution, the San Francisco Public Utility Commission sent notices to all retail water ratepayers providing the information necessary to understand the rates as required by Proposition 218, and included notice to ratepayers that they would have 120 days to file any legal challenge to the proposed water rates under the applicable reverse validation procedures.

Plaintiffs Jennifer Toy et al. had filed an action in May 2022 challenging a 2018 water rate resolution, contending that the resolution included costs for hydrant water flows and infrastructure in the rates in violation of Proposition 218. Among other things, Proposition 218 added article 13D to the California Constitution, which imposes procedural and substantive limitations on a local agency’s ability to extend, impose, or increase property-based taxes and fees. Article 13D, § 6(b)(3), for example, prohibits imposition of a fee or charge unless the amount of the fee or charge is proportional to the service attributable to the parcel.

The City adopted the May 2023 resolution while the Toy action was pending.

Plaintiffs Rose Aquilina et al. filed an action in October 2023 contending that the City, through the May 2023 resolution, violated Article13D of the California Constitution (Proposition 218) by imposing water rates and charges for water service that exceed the cost of service.

At the Superior Court

The Superior Court consolidated the Toy and Aquilina actions.

The City defended the Aquilina action for 14 months without asserting that the action was procedurally improper. In November 2024 the City moved for judgment on the pleadings in that action alleging that the complaint was untimely under Cal. Gov’t Code § 53759, and failed to comply with the validation procedures. The Superior Court granted that motion without leave to amend. It held the validation statutes applied, that such statutes are mandatory and jurisdictional, and that plaintiffs failed to comply with the statutes in two respects, including that their lawsuit was time-barred.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the City waived the validation law defense, and that their action was timely. The Court of Appeal held that the validation law was mandatory and jurisdictional, and that plaintiffs’ failure to comply with that law was fatal to their claim. Compliance with the reverse validation procedural requirements is a prerequisite for the court’s jurisdiction, not the subject of an affirmative defense to be proven by the agency. Contrasting forfeiture, which is the failure to assert a right in a timely fashion, with waiver, which is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right, the Court ruled that waiver of the reverse validation procedural prerequisite would require a showing of intent to abandon, which plaintiffs did not present. The Court did not address the timeliness issue.

Validation Law

An action under the validation statutes permits a public agency to obtain a judgment upholding its handling of an agency matter. In 1961 the Legislature replaced the patchwork of provisions governing validation proceedings with a general validation procedure. This procedure, codified as Code of Civil Procedure §§ 860 through 870, does not, in itself, authorize any validation actions; rather, it establishes a uniform system that other statutory schemes (here Cal. Gov’t Code § 53759) must activate by reference.

Not all validation actions are brought by the promulgating agency. Code of Civil Procedure § 863 authorizes private parties to bring validation actions, and the private party is often seeking to invalidate the agency action in question. Actions brought by private parties under § 863 are sometimes called reverse validation actions.

A validation action is “a proceeding in rem,” in which the judgment binds all persons and entities having an interest in the subject agency matter. When the validation statutes apply, they supersede other mechanisms by which an interested private party might seek to challenge the same agency action.

Validation law has long referred to Code of Civil Procedure § 860 et seq., a reference expressly confirmed in § 53759(b), that “Any action under this section … shall be brought pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except that the time limits of subdivision (a) [of § 53759] shall apply ….” This means, among other things, that the plaintiffs here were required to file an in rem action timely and promptly provide service of a summons with specified contents directed to both the City and by publication to “all persons interested in the matter,” consistent with the statutory requirements (see Code. Civ. Proc. §§ 860–863). Publication is the primary means of notice in a validation case.

Plaintiffs did not seek approval of the form or method of service of any summons, and did not provide service by publication of any summons on all interested individuals. The summons that plaintiffs served only on the City did not meet the requirements for a reverse validation summons, which must be (1) in the prescribed form, (2) directed to all persons interested in the matter and to the public agency, and (3) published for the period and in the manner required by statute.

Failure to publish a summons in accordance with the statutory requirements deprives the court of jurisdiction over “all interested parties,” which deprives the court of the power to rule on the matter. A plaintiff’s compliance with the reverse validation procedural requirements is a prerequisite for the court’s jurisdiction. Failure to comply with those requirements is not an affirmative defense to be proven by the agency.

Code of Civil Procedure § 473(a)(1) permits a court:

“in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, [to] allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

Plaintiffs did not move for relief under § 473.

Conclusion and Implications

The Court of Appeal concluded that the validation law is mandatory and jurisdictional, and affirmed dismissal of the cases for failure to comply.

This article was originally published in the September 2026 edition of the California Water Law & Policy Reporter. It is posted here on our website with the permission of California Water Law & Policy Reporter, Argent Communications Group, Argent & Schuster, Inc., and the author, Larry Caster. All rights remain with the original publisher.

Larry Caster practices in the areas of water and environmental law as it relates to the exercise of water rights. He represents clients in both the Gila River Adjudication and the Little Colorado River Adjudication pending in the state courts. He also represents water users in the Upper Gila River Valley in federal court litigation, and water users in the Agua Fria River Basin in state court. He can be reached at lcaster@fennemorelaw.com.