A California resident's attempt to claim nearly $45 billion in damages from the state has been thwarted by a series of legal setbacks. Sivatharan Natkunanathan, representing himself, initially filed a complaint against the State of California in Alameda County Superior Court on April 2022, alleging that his rights under the Harris-Katz California Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights were violated. However, his appeal was dismissed due to procedural errors and failure to substantiate his claims.
Natkunanathan's complaint stems from a 2009 incident where the Franchise Tax Board proposed additional taxes and penalties on his personal income for the 2008 tax year. After appealing to the State Board of Equalization and its successor, the Office of Tax Appeals, the proposed assessment was eventually canceled in April 2018. Natkunanathan then sought reimbursement for costs incurred during the appeal process, but his claim was dismissed by the Office of Tax Appeals in August 2018 as ineligible for reimbursement.
In his lawsuit, Natkunanathan alleged that an officer or employee of the Office of Tax Appeals recklessly disregarded published procedures when dismissing his reimbursement claim. He sought damages under Revenue and Taxation Code section 21021, which allows taxpayers to sue if an officer or employee of the Franchise Tax Board recklessly disregards board-published procedures. However, he did not allege any misconduct by officers or employees of the Franchise Tax Board itself.
The State demurred to Natkunanathan’s complaint on several grounds: failure to comply with Government Claims Act requirements, being time-barred, and insufficient facts to constitute a cause of action under section 21021. The trial court sustained this demurrer without leave to amend on March 2, 2023. Following this decision, Natkunanathan filed motions to vacate judgment and for reconsideration but failed to provide adequate legal basis or new evidence.
On May 31, 2023, Natkunanathan filed a notice of appeal from post judgment orders denying his motions. However, this notice did not include an appeal from the original judgment itself—a critical oversight since appeals must be explicitly stated within specified deadlines. Consequently, both post judgment orders were affirmed while attempts to challenge the original judgment were dismissed as untimely.
Representing himself throughout these proceedings likely complicated matters for Natkunanathan. His filings contained procedural errors such as attaching declarations not part of appellate records and improper pagination in briefs—issues that courts do not overlook even for self-represented litigants.
The case was heard before Justices Richman, Stewart (Presiding), and Miller at California’s First Appellate District Court (Case ID: A168170). The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over most aspects due to procedural deficiencies but upheld lower court decisions regarding post judgment orders.