City of Carson v. CITY OF LA MIRADA

Good Law
125 Cal. App. 4th 532·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 2261·2005 Daily Journal DAR 75·22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 815·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 52
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 30, 2004B168849California5,289 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aldrich, J.

INTRODUCTION

What is a “big box retailer” as used by the Legislature in Health and Safety Code section 33426.7 and Government Code section 53084? Commonly known as Assembly Bill No. 178 (Assem. Bill No. 178 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) §§ 3 & 2 (Bill No. 178), enacted by Stats. 1999, ch. 462, respectively), these statutes prohibit a redevelopment agency from providing financial assistance to a “big box retailer” that is relocating from one community to another within the same market area.

Plaintiff, City of Carson (Carson), appeals from the denial of its petition for writ of mandate. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085.) Carson seeks to require the defendants, City of La Mirada, City Council of La Mirada, and the La Mirada Redevelopment Agency (together, La Mirada) to comply with the requirements of Bill No. 178 and share with Carson a portion of the sales tax revenue it receives from Corporate Express, Inc. (Corporate Express).

Bill No. 178 was enacted by the Legislature for the express purpose of preventing competition between municipalities for businesses that generate large amounts of retail sales tax. The definition of “big box retailer,” contained in the statute, is based on two…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.