Opinion
A149710
07-25-2018
PARKSMART, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant and Respondent; JIM WOODWARD, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSN160948)
ParkSmart, Inc. (ParkSmart) appeals the trial court's denial of its petition for a writ of mandate. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085.) ParkSmart is the owner and operator of private parking facilities in Northern California. ParkSmart's petition sought to compel the California Department of Motor Vehicles and Jim Woodward (collectively, the DMV) to approve its application for a commercial requester account. Upon approval of this application, the DMV issues a code, which allows an individual or organization to obtain information from the DMV's files. (Veh. Code, § 1810.2, subd. (a).) ParkSmart sought this account and code to obtain residential address information of vehicle owners who violate ParkSmart's parking regulations. The DMV denied ParkSmart's application, and the trial court denied ParkSmart's petition for a writ of mandate. We affirm.
All undesignated statutory references are to the Vehicle Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In January 2016, ParkSmart applied to the DMV for a "Commercial Requester Account" for the purpose of "obtaining vehicle residence address information in connection with its regulation of unauthorized parking at its private parking facilities." The DMV denied the application, stating that "as a private parking management company you do not qualify for residence address access." In February 2016, ParkSmart filed a revised application, which was also denied. The DMV noted "the Legislature has yet to make an exception that allows private parking management firms to receive residence address information from [the] DMV." By email, dated March 28, 2016, the DMV stated ParkSmart may be able to access DMV records to identify the owners of registered vehicles, but not their residential addresses.
On May 26, 2016, ParkSmart filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to compel the DMV to approve its application and to issue it "a commercial requester code for the purpose of obtaining vehicle residence address information[.]" The trial court issued a tentative ruling denying the petition, and held a hearing on it. The trial court denied the petition. ParkSmart timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
I.
Standard of Review
"A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station[.]" (Civ. Proc. Code, § 1085, subd. (a).) " 'Generally, a writ of ordinary mandate will lie when (1) there is no plain, speedy and adequate alternative remedy, (2) the public official has a legal and usually ministerial duty to perform and (3) the petitioner has a clear and beneficial right to performance.' " (Cape Concord Homeowners Assn. v. City of Escondido (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 180, 189.) " 'Because the duty here asserted is one allegedly arising out of statute and/or constitutional guaranty, this court must engage in de novo review of the trial court's refusal to issue the writ. [Citation.]' " (Jacobs v. Regents of the University of California (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 17, 24.)
II.
The DMV Is Not Required to Disclose Residential Address Information to ParkSmart
ParkSmart contends that state and local law require the DMV to provide it with access to the residential address information of registered vehicle owners. We disagree.
A. California's Vehicle Code Prohibits the DMV from Disclosing Residential Address Information to ParkSmart
"When interpreting statutes, we begin with the plain, commonsense meaning of the language used by the Legislature. [Citation.] If the language is unambiguous, the plain meaning controls. [Citation.] Potentially conflicting statutes must be read in the context of the entire statutory scheme, so that all provisions can be harmonized and given effect." (Voices of the Wetlands v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 499, 519 (Voices of the Wetlands).)
Here, the Vehicle Code expressly provides that "[a]ny residence address in any record of the [DMV] is confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, except a court, law enforcement agency, or other government agency, or as authorized in Section 1808.22 or 1808.23." (§ 1808.21, subd. (a).) Section 1808.22 makes exceptions, under specified circumstances, for financial institutions (§ 1808.22, subd. (a)), insurance companies or their authorized contractors (§ 1808.22, subd. (b)-(c)), and attorneys representing clients in criminal or civil actions that involve the use of a motor vehicle or vessel (§ 1808.22, subd. (d)). Section 1808.23 makes exceptions for vehicle manufacturers (§ 1808.23, subd. (a)(1)); dealers or their agents (§ 1808.23, subd. (a)(2)); persons using the information for statistical research or reporting purposes (§ 1808.23, subd. (a)(3); Civ. Code, § 1798.24, subd. (h)); and electrical corporations or utilities (§ 1808.23, subd. (a)(4)).
As ParkSmart concedes, there is no statutory exception for owners or operators of private parking facilities. Thus, the plain language of section 1808.21, subdivision (a) prohibits the DMV from disclosing the residential address information of vehicle owners to ParkSmart. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying ParkSmart's petition for a writ of mandate seeking to compel the DMV to provide it with a commercial requester account and code.
B. Section 21107.8 Does Not Require the DMV to Disclose Residential Address Information to ParkSmart
In arguing the DMV must provide it with access to the information, ParkSmart relies on section 21107.8, subdivision (a)(2)(A), which provides that local governments may authorize "the operator of a privately owned and maintained offstreet parking facility to regulate unauthorized parking in that facility." But this statute does not state the DMV is required to disclose residential address information to operators of private parking facilities, and we cannot read into it language it does not contain. (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 545 (City of Los Angeles).)
Indeed, in a later subdivision of the same section, the statute provides that owners or operators of private parking facilities "shall not file with, or transmit to, the [DMV] a parking fee invoice for the purpose of having the [DMV] attempt to collect unpaid parking fees by refusing to renew the registration of a vehicle[.]" (§ 21107.8, subd. (a)(2)(B)(ii).) Thus, the sole reference to the DMV in section 21107.8 indicates the DMV should not assist owners or operators of private parking facilities in their efforts to regulate unauthorized parking.
Because their briefs were filed in 2017, both the Attorney General and ParkSmart quote from former section 21107.8, subdivision (a)(2)(B)(ii). The statute was amended effective January 1, 2018. (Stats. 2017, ch. 741, § 4.) Like the former version, the statute currently provides that owners and operators of private parking facilities shall not file or transmit parking fee invoices to the DMV.
We grant ParkSmart's unopposed request that we take judicial notice of documents from the legislative bill file of the Assembly Committee on Local Government on Assembly Bill No. 451. This bill amended section 21107.8 to authorize cities and counties to allow operators of private parking facilities to regulate unauthorized parking. (Assem. Bill. No. 451 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) § 1.) Having reviewed the documents, they do not alter our conclusion that section 21107.8 does not require the DMV to provide residential address information to ParkSmart.
ParkSmart contends that, other than the "express prohibition" in section 21107.8, subdivision (a)(2)(B)(ii), "no other restrictions were placed on the DMV," and that "[i]f the State Legislature meant to restrict the communication of address information, it certainly would have - however, it did not." We disagree. Section 1808.21, subdivision (a) expressly provides that residential address information "shall not be disclosed to any person," except specified entities.
In a footnote, ParkSmart maintains that section 40206—which requires delivery of a notice of delinquent parking violation to registered vehicle owners—supports its request for a commercial requester account and code, but, in its opening brief, ParkSmart does not challenge the trial court's determination that section 40206 applies to public entities. We presume the trial court's determination is correct, and " 'error must be affirmatively shown.' " (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) In its reply brief, ParkSmart argues section 40206 applies to it because it applies to " 'local ordinances.' " We decline to consider this argument because ParkSmart makes it for the first time in its reply brief. (Simpson v. The Kroger Corp. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1370 (Simpson).)
C. Walnut Creek's Municipal Code Does Not Require the DMV to Disclose Residential Address Information to ParkSmart
Chapter 10 of Title 6 of Walnut Creek's Municipal Code pertains to private parking facilities. In Walnut Creek, private parking operators are permitted to "assess a mail-in charge to owners of vehicles parked without authorization . . . by issuing a notice of charge." (Walnut Creek Mun. Code, § 6-10.03a.) "The private parking operator or processing agency shall mail a courtesy reminder notice to the registered owner of the vehicle and any other persons who reasonably appear to have any interest in the vehicle." (Id., § 6-10.04.) ParkSmart argues the DMV is required to provide it with access to residential address information of registered vehicle owners because this information is necessary for ParkSmart to comply with this municipal requirement that it mail courtesy notices.
We are not persuaded. Section 6-10.04 of Walnut Creek's municipal code does not mention the DMV, let alone purport to oblige the DMV to provide residential address information to operators of private parking facilities, and we will not read into this provision language it does not contain. (City of Los Angeles, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 545.) Having concluded that section 6-10.04 does not impose requirements on the DMV, we decline to address the parties' arguments regarding the doctrine exempting state entities from local regulation or preemption of local laws.
We deny ParkSmart's supplemental request for judicial notice because the supplemental materials are not relevant to the issues we address on appeal, and because they are offered in support of ParkSmart's arguments regarding the DMV's safeguards and security requirements. ParkSmart makes these arguments for the first time in its reply brief. Accordingly, we decline to consider them. (Simpson, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 1370.) --------
D. The California Code of Regulations Does Not Require the DMV to Disclose Residential Address Information to ParkSmart
Next, ParkSmart relies on a regulation providing that the DMV shall not release residential address information, except "[w]hen the requester certifies and the department determines that residence information is needed in order to comply with a state or federal statute, regulation, or rule of court that requires or permits the department to release residence information from the department's records." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13, § 350.03, subd. (b)(2).) But ParkSmart does not identify a state or federal statute, regulation or rule of court requiring the DMV to release this information to owners or operators of private parking facilities, and, based on the plain language of section 1808.21, subdivision (a), the DMV is not permitted to do so. Accordingly, ParkSmart's reliance on this regulation is misplaced.
E. Section 1810.2 Does Not Require the DMV to Disclose Residential Address Information to ParkSmart
Section 1810.2, subdivision (c) of the Vehicle Code provides the DMV "shall establish a commercial requester account when it determines that the applicant has a legitimate business need for the information requested and when the applicant files a [$50,000] bond . . . and pays a [$250] filing fee." ParkSmart argues the DMV is required to establish a commercial requester account for it because it has a legitimate business need for residential address information of registered vehicle owners.
But ParkSmart ignores subdivision (a) of section 1810.2, which provides the DMV "may establish commercial requester accounts for individuals or organizations and issue requester codes for the purpose of obtaining information from the department's files, except as prohibited by Section 1808 .21." (Italics added.) As explained ante, section 1808.21, subdivision (a) provides that residential address information "shall not be disclosed to any person," except specified entities, and there is no statutory exception that applies to ParkSmart. Thus, subdivision (c) refers to information other than residential address information, or to the legitimate business needs of persons or entities that are not prohibited from receiving residential address information. (Voices of the Wetlands, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 519 [requiring that statutory provisions be harmonized].) This statute does not support ParkSmart's position.
F. No Implied Exception for ParkSmart to the Prohibition Against Disclosing Residential Address Information
ParkSmart argues "there can be implied exceptions [to section 1808.21] when the DMV is required to disclose confidential residence address information in order to allow entities to comply with a statutory obligation, despite a lack of specific authority within the statutory scheme." ParkSmart relies on County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 475 (County of Los Angeles), where the court held that forms used by the sheriff's department to document the towing of vehicles were exempt from disclosure to a private party under the California Public Records Act. (Id. at p. 478.) In so holding, the court relied in part on section 1808.21 of the Vehicle Code, noting this statute "was enacted to protect the confidentiality of . . . residential addresses[.]" (Id. at p. 483.)
County of Los Angeles also addressed whether the sheriff's department waived confidentiality by disclosing vehicle owners' addresses to towing companies. (County of Los Angeles, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 485.) The court rejected this argument because the disclosure was "required by law." (Id. at p. 486.) As the court explained, "[t]owing companies tow disabled and abandoned vehicles from public highways, and when the vehicles are impounded, the towing company obtains a lien on the vehicle for the towing, storage, and labor costs incurred. (Civ. Code, § 3068.1, subd. (a)(1).) Before the vehicle may be sold to satisfy this lien, the towing company (as lienholder) must provide notice to its registered and legal owner by certified mail. (Civ. Code, §§ 3071, subd. (b)(2), 3072, subd. (b); Veh. Code, § 22851.8, subd. (b).) Therefore, towing companies as lienholders are entitled to addresses from the DMV to perform their statutory duty to provide this notice to owners of impounded or stored vehicles." (County of Los Angeles, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 486.) Like towing companies, ParkSmart contends it "is under a statutory obligation . . . to mail notices regarding parking violations."
To the contrary, County of Los Angeles does not help ParkSmart. First, with regard to the forms at issue in County of Los Angeles, the sheriff's department obtained the vehicle owners' addresses from the registration paperwork in the vehicle or from the DMV through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS). (County of Los Angeles, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 479.) The question presented was whether the county waived confidentiality by disclosing address information to towing companies. (Id. at pp. 485-486.) The case did not concern the DMV's disclosure obligations, and the court did not address implied exceptions to section 1808.21. (Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1109, 1160 [" 'cases are not authority for propositions not considered.' "].)
Second, in answering the question presented, the court relied on provisions of the Vehicle Code and Civil Code requiring towing companies to provide notice to registered owners before selling the vehicles to satisfy liens. (County of Los Angeles, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 486.) But here, the only "statutory obligation" to mail notices that ParkSmart identifies derives from Walnut Creek's municipal code. We cannot conclude there is an implied exception to section 1808.21 based on a municipal code provision that does not refer to the DMV. (Whaler's Village Club v. California Coastal Com. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 240, 258 ["When statutes express certain exceptions to a general rule, other exceptions are not to be implied or presumed."].)
III.
Privacy Concerns Support the Trial Court's Denial of ParkSmart's Petition
ParkSmart argues privacy laws do not prohibit it from obtaining a commercial requester account and code. We disagree.
In 1989, the Legislature added sections 1808.21 and 1808.22 to the Vehicle Code "to protect individuals from unwanted invasions of their homes[.]" (Stats. 1989, ch. 1213, § 1, p. 4713.) In enacting these provisions, the Legislature declared in part that "[i]n order for individuals to be able to exercise their right to privacy, they must be able to choose when to release personal information, and to whom, and reasonable laws requiring the individual to surrender control should be enacted only when it is deemed absolutely necessary for society's welfare." (Ibid.) To protect this privacy interest, section 1808.21, subdivision (a) prohibits the DMV from disclosing residential address information "to any person," except specified entities.
In arguing privacy laws do not prohibit disclosure, ParkSmart cites Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 37-38, and Jacob B. v. County of Shasta (2007) 40 Cal.4th 948, 961. These cases do not help ParkSmart because they do not address whether the DMV is required or permitted to provide ParkSmart with a commercial requester account or code. Section 1808.21, subdivision (a) prohibits the DMV from doing so.
ParkSmart argues there is "a clear public policy interest" in providing it with access to residential address information of registered vehicle owners. This is an argument for the Legislature, not the courts. "Our role is to determine what the Legislature intended by the statute it enacted." (Apple Inc. v. Superior Court (2013) 56 Cal.4th 128, 150.) Section 1808.21, subdivision (a) provides that residential address information "in any record of the [DMV] is confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person," and there is no statutory exception for entities like ParkSmart.
DISPOSITION
We affirm the order denying ParkSmart's petition for a writ of mandate. The DMV is entitled to costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).)
/s/_________
Jones, P.J. We concur: /s/_________
Simons, J. /s/_________
Needham, J.