City of Los Angeles v. Patel CA2/1

facts provided in the trial court’s ruling]; Artal v. Allen (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 273, 275, fn. 2 (Artal) [“ ‘[B]riefs and argument . . . are reliable indications of a party’s position on the facts as well as the law, and a reviewing court may make use of statements therein as admissions against the party. [Citations.]’ [Citations.]”].) We also note that because Patel did not file a reply brief, we deem him to have admitted certain facts raised in the respondent’s brief that he did not anticipate and refute in his opening brief. (See Rudick v. State Bd. of Optometry (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 77, 89–90 (Rudick) [concluding that the appellants made an implicit concession by “failing to respond in their reply brief to the [respondent’s] argument on th[at] point”].) 2Undesignated ordinance citations are to the Los Angeles Municipal Code.

3 access, license or other agreement, for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days.” (See § 21.7.2, subd. (d).) Section 21.7.3 provides that, “[f]or the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient is subject to and shall pay a tax . . . at the rate of fourteen percent” “of the rent charged…