Ruling by
Sandra L. MarguliesLower Court
Alameda County Superior CourtFranchise fee may constitute a tax subject to article XIII C to the extent it is not reasonably related to the value received from the government.
Court
California Courts of Appeal 1DCA/1Cite as
2020 DJDAR 3572Published
Apr. 21, 2020Filing Date
Apr. 17, 2020Opinion Type
ModificationDisposition Type
Affirmed (in part)ROBERT ZOLLY et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
CITY OF OAKLAND,
Defendant and Respondent.
No. A154986
(Alameda County
Super. Ct. No. RG16821376)
California Courts of Appeal
First Appellate District
Division One
Filed April 17, 2020
Trial Judge: Hon. Paul D. Herbert
Counsel
Zacks, Freedman & Patterson and Andrew M. Zacks; Katz Appellate Law and Paul J. Katz for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Barbara Parker, Doryanna Moreno, Maria Bee, David Pereda and Celso Ortiz, City Attorney; Chao ADR, PC and Cedric C. Chao; DLA Piper LLP, Tamara Shepard and Mauricio Gonzalez, for Defendant and Respondent.
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on March 30, 2020, be modified as follows:
1. On page 2, at the end of footnote 2, add the following sentence:
On February 20, 2020, the City filed an unopposed request for judicial notice of (1) a March 2014 report by the California Legislative Analyst's Office entitled "A Look at Voter-Approval Requirements for Local Taxes," and (2) excerpts from the Voter Information Guide, General Election (Nov. 2, 2010). We grant the request. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c).)
There is no change in judgment.
Respondent's petition for rehearing is denied.
Dated:
Humes, P.J.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424