Altbaum v. State of Cal. CA4/1

── Altbaum v. State of Cal. CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/3/26 Altbaum v. State of Cal. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CHRIS ALTBAUM et al., D085207 Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2024- 00003904-CU-MC-CTL) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard S. Whitney, Judge. Affirmed. Leroy George Siddell, in pro. per., and for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Tamar Pachter, Assistant Attorney General, Lisa W. Chao, Angela K. Zugman, and Kara Siegel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent. The trial court sustained without leave to amend Defendant State of California’s demurrer to Plaintiffs Chris Altbaum; Royal Pawn, Inc.; and Leroy George Siddell’s complaint challenging the constitutionality of California Assembly Bill No. 28, which imposes an excise tax upon firearms dealers, firearms manufacturers, and ammunition vendors from the retail sale in California of firearms, firearm precursor parts, or ammunition. (See Assembly Bill No. 28 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) § 7.) Plaintiffs assert several reasons the court purportedly erred in doing so. First, Plaintiffs contend they have standing. We conclude they do not. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Taking Offense v. State of California (2025) 18 Cal.5th 891 confirms Plaintiffs lack taxpayer standing under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a, Plaintiffs lack standing as private attorneys general, Article III and public-interest standing are inapplicable to this matter, and Plaintiffs forfeited any claim of common-law taxpayer standing by failing to assert that argument until their supplemental letter brief and not developing it. Accordingly, Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of adequately pleading standing. Second, Plaintiffs argue section 32 of article XIII of the California Constitution—California’s “pay first, litigate later” rule—does not bar their claims. We disagree. The narrow exception to the rule does not apply because the State plausibly could prevail over Plaintiffs’ challenge. Plaintiffs thus cannot challenge the tax without first paying it. Third, Plaintiffs argue the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend. We determine otherwise. Plaintiffs were required to pay the tax before bringing suit. As they sued before the tax went into effect, they cannot allege compliance with this prerequisite. Accordingly, leave to amend would have been futile. Given these conclusions, we need not reach Plaintiffs’ constitutional arguments. We therefore affirm. I. Effective January 1, 2024, Revenue and Taxation Code section 36011, which codifies Assembly Bill No. 28, provides that, “[c]ommencing July 1, 2024, an excise tax is hereby imposed upon licensed firearms dealers, 2 firearms manufacturers, and ammunition vendors, at the rate of 11 percent of the gross receipts from the retail sale in this state of any firearm, firearm precursor part, or ammunition.” (Added by Stats. 2023, ch. 231, § 7.) On January 26, 2024, before section 36011’s excise tax came into effect, Plaintiffs filed the underlying complaint. In the comp