Appellant hotel owner sought relief from the judgment entered by the Superior Court of Alameda County (California), awarding relief to respondent city on appellant's cross-complaint that alleged that a business license tax ordinance passed by respondent violated the equal protection clause of the constitution. Respondent had filed suit to collect the taxes under the contested ordinance.
Respondent city enacted a business license tax ordinance, which required that certain businesses pay annual taxes. Respondent filed a complaint to collect unpaid business license taxes, and appellant hotel owner filed a cross-complaint for declaratory relief, alleging that the ordinance violated the equal protection clause of the constitution. The trial Defense lawyerentered judgment for respondent. Appellant sought relief. The court held that appellant was subject to a business license tax irrespective of the nature of the legal relationship between the provider and the guest. Appellant next argued that even if the disputed section of the ordinance applied to the hotel operation, it was invalid because it contravened the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The court held that the ordinance was enacted for rational reasons, and a mere disparity in the tax rate did not provide a legitimate reason to overturn the ordinance on equal protection grounds. The court concluded that the ordinance was constitutionally justified and that appellant's contention that the tax classification in the ordinance automatically failed was wrong; thus, the court affirmed the judgment. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court upholding the business license tax ordinance because the business tax was enacted upon a rational basis, and a disparity in tax rates did not violate the equal protection clause of the constitution. Therefore, the ordinance was not contrary to equal protection standards. Appellants, two excursion providers, sought review of a summary judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) entered against them and in favor of respondent, a trade association for the sight-seeing and tour service industry, on their cross-complaint seeking equitable indemnity in a personal injury action. The court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of respondent, a trade association for the sight-seeing and tour service industry, on a cross-complaint for equitable indemnity filed by appellants, two excursion providers. Appellants had filed the cross-complaint in connection with an underlying personal injury action brought by two tourists. The court adopted the American Motorcycle modification to the equitable indemnity rule to permit a concurrent tort-feasor to obtain partial indemnity from other concurrent tort-feasors on a comparative fault basis. Accordingly, respondent's obligation to indemnify appellant provider depended on its having been at least partially responsible for plaintiffs' injuries. The motion for summary judgment on the complaint disposed of the issue in respondent's favor. Appellants were bound, therefore, by the judgment. Although respondent and appellants were co-defendants in the main action, they were, nevertheless, adversaries as to the issues raised by respondent's motion for summary judgment on the complaint. Appellants could not litigate its cross-complaint, which raised only issues already determined by the prior judgment. The summary judgment in favor of respondent, a trade association for the sight-seeing and tour service industry, on the cross-complaint was affirmed because appellants, two excursion providers, were bound by a summary judgment on the complaint.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
May 2023
Categories |