Tuesday, October 15, 2013

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND RELATED RELIEF: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; CITY OF DEL REY OAKS; CITY OF GONZALES; CITY OF GREENFIELD; CITY OF KING CITY; CITY OF MARINA; CITY OF SALINAS; CITY OF SAND CITY; CITY OF SEASIDE; and CITY OF SOLEDAD, Petitioners, v. COUNTY OF MONTEREY; OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY; MICHAEL J. MILLER, in his official capacity as AUDITORCONTROLLER FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Respondents (Case No.M125153)

ABSTRACT: The PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND RELATED RELIEF: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; CITY OF DEL REY OAKS; CITY OF GONZALES; CITY OF GREENFIELD; CITY OF KING CITY; CITY OF MARINA; CITY OF SALINAS; CITY OF SAND CITY; CITY OF SEASIDE; and CITY OF SOLEDAD, Petitioners, v. COUNTY OF MONTEREY; OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY; MICHAEL J. MILLER, in his official capacity as AUDITOR-CONTROLLER FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Respondents, (Case No.M125153), dated October 9, 2013, is embedded.  Petitioner City of Carmel-by-the-Sea filed its claim on or about February 8, 2013; and “Petitioner has been harmed in an amount according to proof, but believed to be no less than the following.” As to Petitioner City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, $40,764.00. Document includes FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Writ of Mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § I085), SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Damages Under Code of Civil Procedure Section I095 and THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Relief and PRAYER FOR RELIEF. Cities, Petitioners, have “been harmed” in the total amount of no less than $1,897,057.00. Re: ALHAMBRA, CITY OF v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, California Supreme Court Case S185457 and Court of Appeal Case, Second Appellate District, Div. 3 B218347 documents are embedded for reference.  

City of Carmel-By-The-sea Et Al. v. County of Monterey Et Al. (m125153)
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND RELATED RELIEF
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; CITY OF DEL REY OAKS; CITY OF GONZALES; CITY OF GREENFIELD; CITY OF KING CITY; CITY OF MARINA; CITY OF SALINAS; CITY OF SAND CITY; CITY OF SEASIDE; and CITY OF SOLEDAD, Petitioners, v. COUNTY OF MONTEREY; OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY; MICHAEL J. MILLER, in his official capacity as AUDITORCONTROLLER FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Respondents
Case No. M125153

s 185457
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
CITY OF ALHAMBRA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents
Case S185457
 
b 218347IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
CITY OF ALHAMBRA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.  B218342
 RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:

Lawsuit claims Monterey County overcharged cities nearly $1.9 million
Carmel mayor calls for $1M cemetery investment
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer,10/14/2013

Excerpt Highlights:
After months of talks, a group of 11 local cities has filed a lawsuit seeking the refund of millions of dollars from Monterey County, alleging they were overcharged for property tax administration fees over a six-year period.
In the lawsuit, filed Wednesday last week, the cities of Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside and Soledad argued that the county and Auditor-Controller Mike Miller overcharged them nearly $1.9 million in administrative fees from 2006-07 to the end of 2012. The fees were charged by the county starting in 2006 for administering a complicated revenue swap involving property taxes, sales taxes and vehicles license fees. Any refund would go into the cities' general funds.
Pacific Grove joined the lawsuit in a supplemental filing, while Monterey has thus far declined to join.
The claims followed a state Supreme Court decision last fall backing an appellate court ruling that found Los Angeles County had overcharged the city of Alhambra and other cities for the property tax administration fees, and was only entitled to charge for the actual cost of its services.

No comments: