$5.4M fee settlement ends 40-year case

SACRAMENTO -- A key legislative committee has approved a $5.4 million settlement for attorney fees in a case that started when a man bought a used car in 1976.

Woosley v. State of California (1992) 3 Cal.4th 758, 789 began as a challenge to California's practice of charging higher fees on cars purchased out of state. It grew into a class action with almost 17 million members and went to the state Supreme Court in 1992, setting a precedent often cited in tax cases.

In fact, the 40-year case went on so long the lead plaintiff and attorney changed his name and moved out of state more than 20 years ago. Patrick G. Woosley said the state paid the original refund he sought in the case many years ago.

"Yes, I'm still around," said Woosley when reached at his home in Houston. "There's a shockingly long list of people who are no longer around -- lawyers and judges."

Woosley will receive $1 million for his legal work on the case. The majority will go to attorneys or heirs of two now-defunct Los Angeles area firms: $2.8 million to the Gansinger Firm and $1.2 million to the Bucetti Firm. Jones Bell in Los Angeles will receive $229,000.

"If anybody goes through the trouble to figure out how much per hour this would be, they'll laugh," Woosley said.

The money was included in SB 939, a placeholder bill the Senate Appropriations Committee amended last week to pay $6.2 million in three legal settlements. This includes $321,000 to settle a discrimination claim brought by an African-American former employee of the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy. SB 939 passed the committee by a 5-1 vote on Monday.

The fee dispute began when classic car enthusiast Charles Patrick Woosley bought a green 1936 Auburn from a seller in North Carolina.

Woosley, who later changed his first name to Patrick to match the name he went by, brought the car back to California. According to court documents, he paid a vehicle license fee of $427 and a use tax of $1,500; if he had bought the car in California, he would have paid $2 and $6, respectively.

"I was charged over 200 times as much vehicle license fee than if I had been able to find the same car in California," Woosley said. "This a fee that goes on for years because of the depreciation schedule. It's not a one-time thing."

The state changed the policy in late 1976 to charge the same fees to in-state and out-of-state buyers. But Woosley filed the class action in 1978 seeking a refund. The Los Angeles County Superior Court certified two classes, totaling 16.8 million people, divided by when they paid the higher fees.

In 1983, the court ruled the Department of Motor Vehicles' method of calculating fees violated the commerce and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution, as well as state law. In 1992, the state Supreme Court upheld the commerce clause ruling, but dismissed claims brought under the California Administrative Procedures Act.

The high court also threw out one class and limited the other class to out-of-state car buyers who had actually applied for refunds, dropping a potentially far-larger case to just $2 million in refunds. It based these orders on the power over tax policy and refunds granted to the Legislature under the state Constitution.

After years of additional litigation, the parties last month agreed to the $5.4 million attorney fee settlement. Assuming SB 939 passes the full Legislature, one of the last bills signed by Gov. Jerry Brown could end a case that began in his first term as governor.