City of Anaheim v. Sup. Ct., No. B216250 - California Case Law
California Case Law - The FindLaw California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal Opinion Summaries Blog

City of Anaheim v. Sup. Ct., No. B216250

In proceedings arising from city's imposition of a "transient occupancy tax" against a number of online travel companies (OTC) in the collective amount of more than $21 million, city's petition for writ of mandate challenging the overruling of its demurrers claiming that the OTCs should abide by the "pay first" rule to challenge the tax is denied as: 1) the city cannot invoke article XIII, section 32 of the California Constitution in this case because that constitutional provision applies only to actions against the state or an officer of the state; and 2) there are no alternative legal grounds upon which the city can impose a "pay first" requirement upon the OTCs in this case. 

Read City of Anaheim v. Sup. Ct., No. B216250 [HTML]

Read City of Anaheim v. Sup. Ct., No. B216250 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed November 24, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Chavez

Counsel
For Appellant:     Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, LLP, Paul R. Kiesel and William L. Larson; Baron & Budd, P.C. and Patrick J. O'Connell; McKool Smith, Steven D. Wolens and Gary Cruciani; City of Anaheim, Cristina L. Talley, City Attorney, and Moses W. Johnson, Assistant City Attorney

For Appellee:   Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Darrel H. Hieber, Stacy R. Horth-Neubert and Daniel M. Rygorsky, Jones Day, Elwood Lui, Brian D. Hershman and Erica L. Reilley McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Jeffrey A. Rossman, Elizabeth B. Herrington and Matthew Oster, Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP and Brian S. Stagner; K&L Gates LLP, William B. Grenner and Nathaniel Curral