Patel

Patel v. City of San Bernardino

Good Law
207 F. App'x 752
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 9, 2006No. 04-56839California346 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Pravin D. Patel and twenty other named plaintiffs bring this suit against the city of San Bernardino, California (“the City”) for damages stemming from the City’s alleged collection of an unlawful transient occupancy tax. District Judge Timlin granted summary judgment in favor of the City. Plaintiffs appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

The parties dispute (1) when the decision invalidating the former ordinance was final and (2) when the new ordinance went into effect. The former ordinance became ineffective on February 3, 1998 when the California Supreme Court denied the City’s petition for review of the California Court of Appeal’s decision invalidating the ordinance. See Cal. R. Ct. 29.4(b)(2). The new ordinance went into effect on February 4, 1998. See Cal. Const, art. II, § 10(a) (stating that a voter initiative goes into effect the day after it is approved by the electorate unless the initiative itself instructs otherwise). Thus, the former ordinance was invalidated less than twenty-four hours before the new ordinance took effect.

Appellants also urge the court to overturn an earlier Ninth Circuit opinion in this case that limited…

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.