Unruh act real estate

by musa k. Article Writer

Respondent city sought a declaration that it could collect money for events at a race track, where appellant district conducted yearly fairs. Appellant district sought to declare a city ordinance invalid. The Superior Court of San Diego County, California, denied appellant promoter's motion to intervene and dismissed his complaint, declared the ordinance valid, and ruled for respondent. The appellants' appeals were consolidated. Nakase law wade has massive experience in Unruh act real estate California.

 

 

Under a local ordinance and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 19610.6, respondent collected fees and taxes for non-racing events at appellant district's fairgrounds. Respondent promoter stopped paying, and tried to intervene in respondent's suit, in order to obtain a refund of taxes paid, claiming the ordinance was invalid. The appellate court agreed. As a state agency with broad functions and authority, appellant district's sovereign immunity extended to entities contracting with it, including appellant promoter. Nothing in the statutory scheme expressly authorized respondent to impose the fees or taxes on the appellant district or its contractors. Without that express consent, the taxing portion of the ordinance was invalid and unenforceable as an improper invasion on the appellant district's sovereignty. Appellant promoter directly appeal from the denial of his intervention motion, so he could not challenge that order. However the appeal of the dismissal of his complaint was proper, and the issue of his entitlement to reimbursement was not encompassed by the trial court's ruling. Thus, because the fees and taxes were invalidly imposed, he was entitled to litigate his claim.

 

 

 

The judgment for respondent was reversed and remanded for a new judgment declaring part of the ordinance invalid as applied to entities contracting with appellant. The dismissal of appellant promoter's complaint was reversed and the trial court was directed to vacate the order sustaining the respondent 's demurrer and enter a new order overruling the respondent's demurrer as to appellant promoter's action.

 

 

 

Plaintiff, a former employee of defendant employer, appealed an order from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted the employer's renewed motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the employee's class claims alleging wage and hour violations, including representative claims under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq., and an unfair competition claim.

 

 

 

The employee signed an arbitration agreement that contained a class and representative action waiver. Following a California Supreme Court decision that was unfavorable to the enforcement of class waiver provisions, the employer voluntarily withdrew its motion to compel arbitration. The employee conducted discovery and obtained class action certification. Thereafter, the United States Supreme Court decided a case in which it found that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempted California case law invalidating class arbitration waivers. The employer renewed its motion to compel arbitration. The court held that the arbitration agreement could not be found unconscionable under Code Civ. Proc., § 1281, based on interference with the ability to vindicate statutory rights because such a finding would be inconsistent with the FAA. Moreover, the FAA did not permit PAGA representative claims under Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (a), to be insulated from arbitration based on public policy reasons. The employer did not waive the right to arbitrate individual claims under Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2, subd. (a), by not seeking to compel arbitration while the case law was unfavorable to its position.

 

 

 

The court affirmed the order.

Sponsor Ads

• Ad Space Available - Rent it Now!

Created on Mar 14th 2021 14:12. Viewed 179 times.

Comments