DOCSLIB.ORG

20180918102139085 Franchi

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
20180918102139085 Franchi No. 17-1299 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, PETITIONER, V. GILBERT P. HYATT, RESPONDENT. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF ALAN B. MORRISON & DARIEN SHANSKE IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY ALAN B. MORRISON COUNSEL OF RECORD THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL 2000 H STREET NW Washington, DC 20052 (202) 994-7120 [email protected] September 18, 2018 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE............................... 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...........................................................1 ARGUMENT .................................................................. 6 THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED. .................................................................. 6 A. NEVADA V. HALL WAS CORRECTLY DECIDED. .......................................................... 6 B. HALL DOES NOT SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE. ........................... 9 1. The Nevada Courts Could Not Constitutionally Apply Nevada Law to Proceedings Before a California State Agency. .............................................................. 9 2. Properly Applying Principles of Personal Jurisdiction May Readily Resolve This and Other Similar Cases. .................. 18 CONCLUSION ............................................................ 24 ADDENDUM ............................................................... 1a ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809, 824 (1975) ..... 13 BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) ................................................ 13 BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549, (2017) ................................................................... 19, 20 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017) ....................... 22 Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) ..................... 22 Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) 19, 20 Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982) ........... 14 Franchise Tax Bd. of State of California v. Hyatt, 407 P.3d 717 (Nev. 2017)...........................................21 Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488 (2003)....................................................12 Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 136 S. Ct. 1277 (2016) ............................................. 8 Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) ................................................ 19 Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352 (1927) ................. 6, 7 Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657 (1892) ............ 13 International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) ..................................................................... 5, 19 J. McIntyre Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011) . 5 Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979) ............... passim New York Life Ins. Co. v. Head, 234 U.S. 149 (1914) ......................................................................... 13 Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1874) ........................ 1 iii Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1984) ................................................................. 3, 9, 12 Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970) .. 14 San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) ............................... 13 South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 138 S. Ct. 2080 (2018) ......................................................................... 16 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) ................................................ 13 Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) ....................... 5 Constitution Dormant Commerce Clause............................14, 16 Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ....................................................... passim Privileges and Immunities Clause, Article IV, § 2, cl. 1 ..................................................................... 11 Statutes Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b) .............................. 8 1 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE Amicus curiae Alan B. Morrison is an associate dean at the George Washington University Law School where he teaches civil procedure and constitutional law. Amicus curiae Darien Shanske is a professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law, and teaches state and local taxation. Neither amicus has any interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of this lawsuit. They are participating as amici in order to offer their views on the issues before the Court which differ from those of the parties and, they believe, those of other amici.1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The question presented by the petition is whether this Court’s decision in Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), should be overruled. Amicus agrees that Hall correctly held that Nevada was subject to suit in the courts of California and that the Nevada statute limiting the liability of the State in that situation to $25,000 did not preclude the judgment of $1,150,000 entered by the California courts. The principal reason why Hall was correctly decided is that the accident that injured the plaintiff in Hall occurred on California roads as a result of the negligent driving of an 1This brief is filed pursuant to blanket consents provided by all parties. No person other than an amicus has authored this brief in whole or in part or made a monetary contribution toward its preparation or submission. 2 employee of the University of Nevada (a state institution) who was driving a university vehicle on university business at that time. No principle of constitutional law allows one state to immunize itself for wrongful conduct of its agents in the territory of another state. Nor does a state’s limit on the amount of damages that it can be assessed in its own courts carry over to the courts of another state. Having chosen to send its employee into California, the State of Nevada had no constitutional basis to object to being sued in California, nor to having California applying its laws compensating victims for injuries that the Nevada employee caused there. But this case involves facts very different from those in Hall, where the events giving rise to liability all occurred in California, the same state where the suit was brought. In this case, by contrast, most if not all of the allegedly wrongful conduct giving rise to the judgments based on claims of fraud and intentional infliction of emotional harm occurred in California, not in Nevada where this case was brought. Because of this difference, this Court need not decide whether Hall should be overruled, but if it does reach that question, Hall should be re-affirmed. However, there are very troubling aspects of the rulings below that should not stand. This case is an effort by respondent to recover damages for what he considers to be highly improper treatment of him by agents of petitioner Franchise Tax Board. Petitioner is the entity responsible for deciding disputes about how much an individual such as 3 respondent must pay in California income tax for the time when that individual was a California resident. Because the focus of the appellate record in this case was not directed at the location of the conduct that respondent alleged gave rise to his claims, a remand may be necessary to make a final determination of where the alleged wrongful conduct took place. But assuming that most if not all of it occurred in California, there are two separate, but inter-related reasons why petitioner, which is an agency of the State of California, could not be sued over these claims in Nevada. First, the Nevada courts had no authority to tell petitioner – under pain of paying damages for disagreeing – how to conduct its audit proceedings regarding respondent’s California income tax liabilities for the period when respondent was a California resident. The Nevada courts properly rejected respondent’s efforts to have them determine the residence question that was at the center of the California litigation, and they also should have rejected respondent’s effort to set down the rules by which petitioner must conduct its audits. Due Process precludes Nevada from applying Nevada law to the conduct of petitioner arising out of its audit of respondent’s taxes where that conduct did not take place in Nevada. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 822 (1984). Just as Nevada could not legitimately dictate to California the rules by which Nevada residents drive their cars in California, so too Nevada cannot, under the guise of protecting its citizens, tell petitioner what it may and may not do outside Nevada in auditing respondent’s California 4 tax returns. Because the judgments below were founded on an unconstitutional extra-territorial application of Nevada law to proceedings before a California state agency, they cannot stand. 2 Second, as is required for every case, unless waived, there must be personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The question presented does not include a claim of lack of personal jurisdiction, but that does not necessarily preclude the Court from deciding the case on that basis. In any event, the Court’s personal jurisdiction jurisprudence has changed since this case began over twenty years ago, and it would be appropriate for the Court to remind state courts that the rules regarding personal jurisdiction apply to suits against government entities as well as those against corporations and individuals. Under this
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A History of the California Supreme Court in Its First Three Decades, 1850–1879
    BOOK SECTION A HISTORY OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IN ITS FIRST THREE DECADES, 1850–1879 293 A HISTORY OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IN ITS FIRST THREE DECADES, 1850–1879 ARNOLD ROTH* PREFACE he history of the United States has been written not merely in the “T halls of Congress, in the Executive offices, and on the battlefields, but to a great extent in the chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States.”1 It is no exaggeration to say that the Supreme Court of California holds an analogous position in the history of the Golden State. The discovery of gold made California a turbulent and volatile state during the first decades of statehood. The presence of the precious ore transformed an essentially pastoral society into an active commercial and industrial society. Drawn to what was once a relatively tranquil Mexican province was a disparate population from all sections of the United States and from many foreign nations. Helping to create order from veritable chaos was the California Supreme Court. The Court served the dual function of bringing a settled * Ph.D., University of Southern California, 1973 (see Preface for additional information). 1 Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History, vol. I (2 vols.; rev. ed., Boston; Little, Brown, and Company, 1922, 1926), 1. 294 CALIFORNIA LEGAL HISTORY ✯ VOLUME 14, 2019 order of affairs to the state, and also, in a less noticeable role, of providing a sense of continuity with the rest of the nation by bringing the state into the mainstream of American law.
    [Show full text]
  • (Refs & Annos) Article I. Declaration of Ri
    § 28. Findings and declarations; rights of victims; enforcement, CA CONST Art. 1, § 28 KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Unconstitutional or PreemptedLimitation Recognized by People v. Robinson, Cal.App. 2 Dist., Sep. 28, 2011 West’s Annotated California Codes Constitution of the State of California 1879 (Refs & Annos) Article I. Declaration of Rights (Refs & Annos) West’s Ann.Cal.Const. Art. 1, § 28 § 28. Findings and declarations; rights of victims; enforcement Effective: November 5, 2008 Currentness <For Executive Order N-49-20 (2019 CA EO 49-20), relating to changes in the discharge and re-entry process at the Division of Juvenile Justice due to the COVID-19 pandemic, see Historical and Statutory Notes under Welfare and Institutions Code § 1766.> Sec. 28. (a) The People of the State of California find and declare all of the following: (1) Criminal activity has a serious impact on the citizens of California. The rights of victims of crime and their families in criminal prosecutions are a subject of grave statewide concern. (2) Victims of crime are entitled to have the criminal justice system view criminal acts as serious threats to the safety and welfare of the people of California. The enactment of comprehensive provisions and laws ensuring a bill of rights for victims of crime, including safeguards in the criminal justice system fully protecting those rights and ensuring that crime victims are treated with respect and dignity, is a matter of high public importance. California’s victims of crime are largely dependent upon the proper functioning of government, upon the criminal justice system and upon the expeditious enforcement of the rights of victims of crime described herein, in order to protect the public safety and to secure justice when the public safety has been compromised by criminal activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Compulsory Judicial Arbitration in California: Reducing the Delay and Expense of Resolving Uncomplicated Civil Disputes R
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 29 | Issue 3 Article 2 1-1978 Compulsory Judicial Arbitration in California: Reducing the Delay and Expense of Resolving Uncomplicated Civil Disputes R. J. Heher Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation R. J. Heher, Compulsory Judicial Arbitration in California: Reducing the Delay and Expense of Resolving Uncomplicated Civil Disputes, 29 Hastings L.J. 475 (1978). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol29/iss3/2 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Compulsory Judicial Arbitration in California: Reducing the Delay and Expense of Resolving Uncomplicated Civil Disputes Our administrationof justice is not decadent. It is simply behind the times .... [W]e may look forward to a near future when our courts will be swift and certain agents of justice, whose de- cisions will be acquiesced in and respected by all.' Roscoe Pound, 1906 [Wie did not heed [Roscoe Pound's] warning, and today, in the final third of this century, we are still trying to operate the courts with fundamentally the same basic methods, the same procedures,2 and the same machinery he said were not good enough in 1906. Chief Justice Warren Burger, 1970 The U.S. has created the most sophisticated - and the fairest - legal process in the world. But the burdens are becoming in- tolerable3 Footlick, Too Much Law? Newsweek Cover Story, January 10, 1977 Introduction: The Severity of Judicial Inefficiency Disputes among people are inevitable.
    [Show full text]
  • California Business and Professions Code Division 8
    CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE DIVISION 8. SPECIAL BUSINESS REGULATIONS CHAPTER 5. THE GAMBLING CONTROL ACT ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 19800. This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the "Gambling Control Act." 19801. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following: (a) The longstanding public policy of this state disfavors the business of gambling. State law prohibits commercially operated lotteries, banked or percentage games, and gambling machines, and strictly regulates parimutuel wagering on horse racing. To the extent that state law categorically prohibits certain forms of gambling and prohibits gambling devices, nothing herein shall be construed, in any manner, to reflect a legislative intent to relax those prohibitions. (b) Gambling can become addictive and is not an activity to be promoted or legitimized as entertainment for children and families. (c) (1) Unregulated gambling enterprises are inimical to the public health, safety, welfare, and good order. Accordingly, no person in this state has a right to operate a gambling enterprise except as may be expressly permitted by the laws of this state and by the ordinances of local governmental bodies. (2) The State of California has permitted the operation of gambling establishments for more than one hundred years. Gambling establishments were first regulated by the State of California pursuant to legislation which was enacted in 1984. Gambling establishments currently employ more than twenty thousand people in the State of California, and contribute more than one hundred million dollars in taxes and fees to California's government. Gambling establishments are lawful enterprises in the State of California, and are entitled to full protection of the laws of this state.
    [Show full text]
  • RECENT DEVELOPMENTS in CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAW -- 2002 November 20, 2002
    RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAW -- 2002 November 20, 2002 George S. Howard, Jr. San Diego (619) 544-3286 Kathryn A. Nyce San Diego (619) 544-3115 The materials contained herein are intended to apprise our clients of general developments in rapidly changing areas of the law. They do not necessarily include all information necessary to evaluate any specific case. They are not intended as legal advice or as legal treatises and should not be relied on as such. © 2002 Pillsbury Winthrop LLP 50114608v3 PILLSBURY WINTHROP LLP I. STATUTORY DEVELOPMENTS A. Summary of Assembly Bill 1661 (Paid Family Leave) Effective Date: Payroll deductions from employees’ paychecks begin January 1, 2004. Eligible employees may take paid family leave beginning July 1, 2004. Summary: Creates paid Family Temporary Disability Insurance (“FTDI”) program which will enable eligible employees to take up to six weeks paid time off for (1) birth, adoption or placement in foster care of a child of the employee, or child of the employee’s spouse or domestic partner; and (2) to care for a sick child of the employee, of the employee’s spouse or domestic partner; or (3) to care for a sick spouse or domestic partner or the employee’s sick parent. This program will initially be funded by contributions from employee paychecks. Employees will be eligible to receive up to 55% of their wages, not to exceed a statutory cap (estimated to be about $720 per week). Application: Applies to all employers covered by the State Disability Insurance Program (basically, all private sector employers). Unlike FMLA, no minimum length of employment requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • California Research Study Guides
    CA Legal Research Guides Lincoln Law School of San Jose Boccardo Law Library One North First Street ♦ San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 977-7227 Lincoln Law School of San Jose Research Guide CA Legal Research Guides – Table of Contents I. Statutes and Legislature II. Judicial III. Executive IV. Regulations & Agencies V. Cases & Courts VI. Local Government VII. General Resources VIII. Legal & Research Resources IX. How to Read a Legal Citation Lincoln Law School of San Jose Research Guide I. Statutes & Legislature Statutes & Codes Finding California Statutes http://libguides.law.ucla.edu/content.php?pid=39743 Print • West’s Annotated California Code Electronic • Westlaw: CA-ST-ANN (online version of West’s Annotated California Code) http://tinyurl.com/7n8wbnu • Internet: State Statutes http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html Legislature Resources Online Frequently Asked Questions about California Law http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/faq.html California Constitution Links to the table of contents for the State of California Constitution. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html California and U.S. Legal History UC Hastings research guide for California and US legal history. http://library.uchastings.edu/library/guides/california-research/CAlegalhistory.html California Legislative Information http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/ Legislative Index (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/legpubs-legindex.html) Table of Sections Affected (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/legpubs-tosa.html) California Session Laws (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/statute.html) California Legislature Bill Information (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html) A Guide to Accessing Legislative Information on the Internet (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/guide.html) Official California Legislative Information (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/index.html) Initiative Process in California UC Hastings guide to the Initiative process in California, including helpful websites.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ———— the HERTZ CORPORATION Et Al., Petitioners, V
    No. 17-859 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— THE HERTZ CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; PETER LEE; AND LATONYA CAMPBELL, Respondents. ———— On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District ———— PETITIONERS’ REPLY BRIEF ———— ROBERT A. DOLINKO Counsel of Record CHARLES M. DYKE MATTHEW J. FRANKEL JULIANNA MALOGOLOWKIN NIXON PEABODY LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 984-8200 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners April 10, 2018 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ iii INTRODUCTION ................................................ 1 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 1 I. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION FOLLOWING TERMINATION OF ORIG- INAL WRIT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURTS .... 1 II. THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS RIPE FOR REVIEW AND WILL LIKELY EVADE REVIEW IF NOT HEARD NOW .......................................................... 3 III. THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT REVIEW TO CONFIRM THAT LEXMARK’S ZONE-OF-INTERESTS TEST APPLIES IN STATE COURT AND CANNOT BE SATISFIED ABSENT ACTUAL INJURY ..................................................... 4 IV. ARTICLE III’S INAPPLICABILITY TO STATE COURTS HAS NO BEARING ON WHETHER FEDERAL UNIFOR- MITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AVOID- ANCE DOCTRINES PRECLUDE NO- HARM FCRA CLAIMS IN STATE COURT ...................................................... 6 (i) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page V. RECENT DECISIONS IN OHIO AND MISSOURI CONTRARY TO THE CALIFORNIA COURTS’ DECISIONS BELOW SHOW THAT INCONSISTENT APPLICATION OF THE FCRA AND FORUM SHOPPING CONCERNS ARE NOT MERELY HYPOTHETICAL ........... 10 CONCLUSION .................................................... 12 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Penalty Appeals and Habeas Proceedings: the Alic Fornia Experience Gerald F
    Marquette Law Review Volume 93 Issue 2 Symposium: Criminal Appeals: Past, Present, Article 7 and Future Death Penalty Appeals and Habeas Proceedings: The aliC fornia Experience Gerald F. Uelmen Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Gerald F. Uelmen, Death Penalty Appeals and Habeas Proceedings: The California Experience, 93 Marq. L. Rev. 495 (2009). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol93/iss2/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DEATH PENALTY APPEALS AND HABEAS PROCEEDINGS: THE CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE GERALD F. UELMEN* I. INTRODUCTION I am especially delighted to participate in the Marquette University Law School Conference on Criminal Appeals because it is a homecoming of sorts for me. Sixty-eight years ago, I was born in Greendale, Wisconsin, just two miles south of Milwaukee. My godfather, Robert Nystrom, was starting his second year of law school here at Marquette in 1943 when he enlisted in the Army Air Corps. He served as a navigator on a B-17 bomber, flying missions out of Seething, England, for the Eighth Air Force. Three weeks after D-Day, he and his crew went down while flying their second mission. He never came home. I have always felt especially blessed that I was able to pursue the legal career he never had, and that he made it possible for me to do so.
    [Show full text]
  • MEMORANDUM Admin
    COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF THE PENAL CODE STAFF MEMORANDUM Admin. June 16, 2021 Memorandum 2021-09 Draft of Death Penalty: Report and Recommendations At its May 2021 meeting, the Committee voted to recommend that California repeal the death penalty and that the Governor, Attorney General, local prosecutors, and the Legislature take other steps to remove people from death row. The attached draft of the report, which builds on earlier staff memorandums, presents the Committee’s recommendations about the death penalty as well as extensive background on the issue. The data referenced throughout the draft report is not final and should not be relied upon for any reason. The Committee now needs to decide whether to approve the attached draft of the report, with or without changes. Upon approval of the Committee, the report will be finalized by Committee staff with assistance from graphic design and copy-editing consultants. Any changes made at this stage will not affect the substance of the Committee’s report or recommendations. Such changes may include adding citations, data, and graphics, and other non-substantive stylistic, editorial revisions. Does the Committee approve the attached draft Death Penalty: Report and Recommendations with or without changes, with the understanding that further revisions may be made by the staff, with approval of the Chair, before the report is formally submitted to the Governor and Legislature? Respectfully submitted, Thomas M. Nosewicz Legal Director Draft Death Penalty: Report and Recommendations Committee on Revision of the Penal Code June 2021 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 2 Repeal the death penalty .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • No. S247278 in the SUPREME COURT of the STATE OF
    No. S247278 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In re Kenneth Humphrey, on Habeas Corpus. Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Proposed Brief of Amici Curiae ACLU of Northern California, ACLU of Southern California, ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties and California law professors After Decision by the Court of Appeal First Appellate District, Division 2, Case No. A152056 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF UNION FOUNDATION OF SAN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. DIEGO & IMPERIAL Micaela Davis (SBN 282195)* COUNTIES, INC. 39 Drumm Street David Loy (SBN 229235) San Francisco, CA 94111 2750 5th Avenue #300 Phone: (415) 621-2493 San Diego, CA 92101 Email: [email protected] Phone: (619) 232-2121 Email: [email protected] AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES REMCHO, JOHANSEN & UNION FOUNDATION OF PURCELL, LLP SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. Robin B. Johansen (SBN 79084) Peter Eliasberg (SBN 189110) James C. Harrison (SBN 161958) 1313 West 8th Street 1901 Harrison Street, Suite 1550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (213) 977-9500 Phone: 510-346-6200 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Amici Curiae AMICI’S MOTION FOR REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Pursuant to Rule 8.252 of the California Rules of Court and sections 452, 453 and 459 of the California Evidence Code, the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) of Northern California, ACLU of Southern California, ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties and California law professors, academics and clinical instructors (“Amici”) respectfully request that the Court take judicial notice of excerpts of proposed ballot initiative text and various newspapers articles in support of Amici’s Proposed Brief In Support of Respondent Kenneth Humphrey, dated October 9, 2018 (“Proposed Brief”).
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Neutralization in Employment Cases Comes to California: Clemens and Economy
    Tax Neutralization in Employment Cases Comes to California: Clemens and Economy Barry Ben-Zion Consulting Forensic Economist This paper is designed to explain the concept of tax neutralization as it applies to non-physical injury legal cases and to describe the two legal cases that brought acceptance of this concept to all California courts. Keywords: Non-3hysical ,njury /egal &ases, Adverse 7ax &onsequence, Tax 1eutralization, 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, California Courts INTRODUCTION The U.S. Congress, back in1996, clarified that any award or settlement in a physical injury or a death case would not be subject to Federal income taxes, but, that any award or settlement in non-physical injury case would be subjected to said tax in the year in which it is paid. The act, H.R. 3448, known as the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, further clarified that emotional distress would not be considered a physical injury. The Internal Revenue Service applies this standard.1 Employment cases, whether termination, discrimination, or wage and hour cases, are non-physical injury cases. The same is true for a variety of other legal cases, such as business damage cases and other non-physical disputes. Due to the progressive nature of Federal income taxes as well as income taxes of many states, a lump sum award or settlement of a legal case will likely be taxed at a higher rate than the rate that would have applied to sequential annual losses. The result is that the plaintiff will suffer an adverse tax consequence from the application of the higher tax rates to the lump sum and would not be made whole unless the adverse tax consequence is neutralized.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix to Petition for Writ of Certiorari ______
    No. ______ In the Supreme Court of the United States ________________ YOURMECHANIC, INC., Petitioner, v. JONATHAN PROVOST, Respondent. ________________ APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ________________ SOPHIA BEHNIA LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner June 18, 2021 TABLE OF APPENDICES Appendix A Order, Supreme Court of California, Provost v. YourMechanic, Inc. No. S265736 (January 20, 2021) ......................... App-1 Appendix B Opinion, California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, Provost v. YourMechanic, Inc. No. D076569 (October 15, 2020) ......................... App-2 Appendix C Minute Order, Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, No.37-2017-00024056-CU-OE-CTL (August 9, 2019) ................................................. App-20 SUPREME COURT App-1 FILED Appendix A JAN 2 0 2021 Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One - No. D076569 Jorge Navarrete Clerk S265736 Deputy IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA En Banc JONATHAN PROVOST, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. YOURMECHANIC, INC., Defendant and Appellant. The petition for review is denied. CANTIL-SAKAUYE ChiefJustice App-2 Appendix B Filed 10/15/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA JONATHAN PROVOST, D076569 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2017- 00024056 CU-OE-CTL) YOURMECHANIC, INC., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John S. Meyer, Judge. Affirmed. Littler Mendelson and Andrew Spurchise; Littler Mendelson, Sophia Behnia and Perry Miska, for Defendant and Appellant. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw, Norman B.
    [Show full text]