The court affirmed the trial court's judgment

Posted by Summer Payne on April 6th, 2021

Defendant city appealed the decision of the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff landowner in the owner's action to recover a business license tax imposed in connection with the development of his land.

The landowner was subjected to a large tax in order to get the map of his proposed subdivision filed by the city. He protested, but the city required that he pay the fee. He did so and then brought an action against the city to recover the amount paid. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the landowner. The trial court found that the city, pursuant to City of Santa Ana, Cal., Municipal Code §§ 6200.55A and 9378, required as a condition precedent to the city's approval of the landowner's final subdivision map, that the landowner pay to the city a sum as a business license or subdivision license fee to partially cover capital outlay for parks, recreation, and fire protection, and that the ordinance sections conflicted with the Subdivision Map Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 11000 - 11709. Visit the labor department san diego for the details of labor law in CA.

On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The court held that the city exceeded its authority to tax land use and the privilege of doing business. The city had taxed only a portion of the landowner's business, the act of subdividing, but not the entire operation of the landowner's business. The court further held that the landowner's payment of the tax was coerced.

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Appellee licensor claimed that appellee licensee failed to pay royalties required under their agreements. The licensee asserted a number of counterclaims in the arbitration and sought to disqualify the licensor's counsel from representing it in the arbitration. The arbitration panel rejected those claims and found them for the licensor. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) denied the petition to vacate. The licensee appealed.

The licensee claimed that the licensor attained the award by undue means as a result of its representation by conflicted counsel. The licensee claimed that it had been represented by the licensor's arbitration counsel in issues involving immigration matters. The licensor claimed that, with respect to those matters, the client was not the licensee, but various employees and officers of the licensee and their families. The appellate court held however that the licensee had at least a colorable claim that the licensor's law firm engaged in conflicted representation or violated its duty of loyalty by undertaking the representation of the licensor in the underlying arbitration. However, the appellate court was constrained by its interpretation of the governing statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1286.2, and the relevant authorities to conclude that the licensee failed to make the showing necessary to vacate the arbitration award. It failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that a conflict existed and that it had a substantial impact on the panel's decision. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in refusing to vacate the award on the ground that it was procured by undue means.

The order denying the petition to vacate the arbitration award and the order confirming the award was affirmed.