Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
California Revenue and Taxation Code ("R&T Code") § 6016 defines "tangible personal property" as "personal property which may be seen, weighed, measured, felt, or touched, or which is in any other manner perceptible to the senses." The R&T Code requires all retailers that sell tangible personal property to consumers to pay sales tax based on the receipts or money that the retailer receives in the transaction." (R&T Code §§ 6007, 6051, 6051.1.) The Code also imposes a "use tax" on storage, use, or other consumption of tangible personal property that is purchased from any retailer. (R&T Code § 6201.)
R&T Code § 6016.5 specifically states that, for purposes of sales and use tax, tangible personal property does not include "telephone and telegraph lines, electrical transmission and distribution lines, and the poles, towers or conduit by which they are supported or in which they are contained." Thus, these specific items are not subject to state taxation.
“In Loeffler v. Target Corp. (2014) 58 Cal. 4th 1081 our Supreme Court reviewed the history and development of California law on the issues raised by Littlejohn's complaint.” (Littlejohn v. Costco Wholesale Corp (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 251, 277.) “In a brief overview, the court summarized: ‘under California's sales tax law, the taxpayer is the retailer, not the consumer. In addition, the taxability question, whether a particular sale is subject to or is exempt from sales tax, is exceedingly closely regulated, complex, and highly technical. A comprehensive administrative scheme is provided to resolve these and other tax questions and to govern disputes between the taxpayer and the Board. Under these administrative procedures, it is for the Board in the first instance to interpret and administer an intensely detailed and fact-specific sales tax system governing an enormous universe of transactions. Administrative procedures must be exhausted before the taxpayer may resort to court. ... [T]his comprehensive statutory scheme is inconsistent with consumer claims such as plaintiffs' by which a party other than the taxpayer would seek to litigate whether a sale is taxable or exempt.’” (Littlejohn citing Loeffler, supra, 58 Cal. 4th at 1103.)
“For that reason the court rejected unfair business practice claims against a retailer based on the allegation that the retailer had collected a sales tax reimbursement on takeout sales of coffee allegedly not subject to a sales tax, because resolution of the claims would require the court to determine the taxability of the transactions.” (Littlejohn v. Costco Wholesale Corp (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 251, 277.)
“The question [presented was] whether customers who have paid sales tax reimbursement on purchases they believe to be exempt from sales tax may file suit to compel the retailers to seek a tax refund from the Department when there has been no determination by the Department or a court that the purchases are exempt. In Javor, we authorized a customer suit where the Board, upon determining that certain retailers had collected excess sales tax reimbursement, had promulgated rules to provide refunds to overpaying customers. The trial court declined to extend Javor to authorize a similar judicial remedy in this case, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. (McClain v. SavOn Drugs (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 684, 700–702 (McClain).) We agree with the courts below in refusing to extend Javor and affirm the judgment sustaining defendants’ demurrer.
Littlejohn v. Costco Wholesale Corp (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 251, a class action suit concerned the following issues:
(Id. at 256)
The prayer for relief was: “that sales tax should be refunded to Costco and in turn refunded to the Costco customers who paid the sales tax reimbursement. This cause of action seeks to require the court to "[o]rder Costco to immediately apply to the full extent it legally can do so to the [Board] for reimbursement of all sales tax it paid to the [Board] due to sales of Ensure in order to immediately return to the class the sales tax reimbursement it paid to Costco for Ensure and to pay interest on said sums from the date they were paid to Costco to the full extent allowed by law.” (Id.)
The court in Littlejohn, acknowledging the similarity to McClain v. Sav-On DrugsThe stated in relevant part, “[T]he most recent published case to reject a possible Javor cause of action is McClain v. Sav-On Drugs (2017) 9 Cal. App. 5th 684, (review granted June 14, 2017, S241471.) McClain distilled from Decorative Carpets and Javor three factors for courts to consider in deciding whether to recognize a Javor cause of action. They are:
Although the Littlejohn court did find that the first two Javor identified in McClain, the court declined to agree with Littlejohn, stating in relevant part, “appellant has not shown that the Board made a precursor determination that sales tax paid on purchases of Ensure between May 30, 2009, and mid-2014 must be refunded.” (Littlejohn, supra, 25 Cal. App. 5th at 260.)
Sample cases holding that there is no exemption on the gross receipts from the sale of component parts of a finished product include: National Aircraft Leasing Ltd. v. State Bd. of Equalization 90 Cal. App. 3d 529, 557, applying R&T Code §§ 6366 and 6366.1); King v. State Bd. of Equalization (1972) 22 Cal. App. 3d 1006, 1012-1013 (discussing § 6006's provisions for precluding evasion of applicable tax for sale of only component parts); Chula Vista Elec. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1975) 53 Cal. App. 3d 445 (holding that while electrical transmission and distribution lines are not tangible personal property under the state sales and use tax laws, the component parts of the transmission and distribution lines, including the cable used to the conduct electricity, are tangible personal property); CR Fedrick, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1974) 38 Cal. App. 3d 385, 399-400.
In Chula Vista, the Plaintiff company contracted with the federal government to remove electrical cable from an existing underground conduit at an air station, and replace it with new cable. Plaintiff paid $ 90,000 for the new cable, and the state assessed a tax measured by that price. In a lawsuit to recover the tax assessed, the trial and appellate courts found that the tax was properly assessed. In addition to applicable exemptions related direct sales to the federal government under Rev. & Tax. Code § 6381 and § 6384, the court concluded that the cable constituted tangible personal property that was taxable under § 6384, and did not qualify under the § 6016.5 exclusion of "electrical transmission lines" from the definition of taxable tangible personal property because that exclusion encompassed only completed lines and not components used in the construction or repair of lines.
18 Cal.Code Regs. § 1585(b)(3), discusses sales and use taxes with respect to cellular telephones, pagers, and other wireless telecommunication devices, and provides in relevant part:
“Bundled Transactions: Tax applies to the gross receipts from the retail sale of a wireless telecommunication device sold in a bundled transaction, measured by the unbundled sales price of that device. Tax applies to the unbundled sales price whether the wireless telecommunication device and utility service are sold for a single price or are separately itemized in the context of a sale or on a sales invoice. The retailer of the wireless telecommunication device is required to report and pay tax measured by the unbundled sales price of the device and may collect tax or tax reimbursement from its customer measured by the unbundled sales price. Tax does not apply to the charges in excess of the unbundled sales price made for telecommunication services.”
Any claim for excess proceeds must have been submitted prior to the expiration of the one-year deadline following the recordation of the tax collector’s deed to the purchaser in order to be considered timely pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code section 4675, subdivision (a). The moving Defendant has not provided any legal basis allowing him to submit an amended claim.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE VS RICHARDS
RIC1903281
Apr 27, 2021
Riverside County, CA
California Revenue and Taxation Code section 19388 states: “Any action against the Franchise Tax Board under this article shall be commenced and tried in any city or city and county in which the Attorney General maintains an office.” The Attorney General does not maintain an office in Sonoma County, but it does maintain one in San Francisco County. (Porter Decl., ¶¶ 5 and 6.) The court rejects Petitioner’s arguments, including her reliance on common law.
BOSTWICK V. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
SCV-261348
Feb 07, 2018
René Auguste Chouteau
Sonoma County, CA
Defendant seeks to transfer this action from the East District to the Central District pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code section 6933.
HAPPY HARBOR RESTAURANT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION, A DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
23PSCV02623
Nov 09, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
California Revenue and Taxation Code section 23301 provides for the suspension or forfeiture of “the corporate powers, rights and privileges of a domestic taxpayer” that is delinquent on payment of taxes owed to the state. A limited liability company is within the scope of the definition of “taxpayer.” (California Revenue and Taxation Code section 23305.5.)
MINSK, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS INTELLECTUAL DISTRIBUTIONS L.L.C., ET AL.
19STCV23200
Dec 05, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
Plaintiff, in its supporting Request for Judicial Notice, has produced a Certificate of Status executed 5/30/18 from the California Secretary of State, which reflects that the California Franchise Tax Board suspended “USM Investments, Inc.’s” (noted as formed on 1/9/15) powers, rights and privileges on 12/1/16, “pursuant to the provisions of the California Revenue and Taxation Code,” and that USM Investment, Inc.’s powers, rights and privileges remain suspended as of that date.
VIRGINA ASSET PARTNERS, LLC VS USM INVESTMENTS, INC.
KC070029
Oct 04, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Under the California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 23301, C&T still has a duty to respond to these requests despite it being unable to defend against the legal claims against it. (See Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 212, 217-18.) Thus, C&T is in essentially a legal coma where it both still has the obligation to respond to discovery requests, while at the same time being unable to do anything in the litigation until it resolves its suspended status.
ANDREA Y OBREON PULIDO ET AL VS MICHAEL JOSEPH BONGIORNO
BC680836
Oct 23, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Under the California Revenue and Taxation Code section 23301, however, a corporation still has a duty to respond to these requests despite it being unable to defend against the legal claims against it. (See Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 212, 217-18.) Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(b) and 2031.300(b) allow the propounding party to file a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and document demands if a response has not been received.
ANDREA Y OBREON PULIDO ET AL VS MICHAEL JOSEPH BONGIORNO
BC680836
Dec 18, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
California Revenue and Taxation Code section 4675, subdivision (a) provides in relevant parts: Any party of interest in the property may file with the county a claim for the excess proceeds, in proportion to that person’s interest held with others of equal priority in the property at the time sale, at any time prior to the expiration of one year following the recordation of the tax collector’s deed to the purchaser.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE VS RICHARDS
RIC1903281
Jul 08, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Defendants argue that declaratory relief is prohibited by California Revenue and Taxation Code § 4807. Section 4807 conforms with California Constitution, article XIII, section 32, and expands it from the state to local authorities. Article XIII, Section 32 of the California Constitution provides as follows: “No legal or equitable process shall issue in any proceeding in any court against this state or any officer thereof to prevent or enjoin the collection of any tax.
YAAKOV GREENSPAN, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
19STCP03626
Jun 26, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
California Revenue and Taxation Code ("R&T Code") §6016 defines "tangible personal property" as "personal property which may be seen, weighed, measured, felt, or touched, or which is in any other manner perceptible to the senses." The R&T Code requires all retailers that sell tangible personal property to consumers to pay sales tax based on the receipts or money that the retailer receives in the transaction." (R&T Code §§6007, 6051, 6051.1.)
VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC VS. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
34-2016-00196022-CU-MC-GDS
Dec 07, 2016
Sacramento County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 23304.1(b). Section 23304.1(b) states that if a foreign corporation that is required to be "qualified" to do business in California, and is not qualified, fails to file the requisite Franchise Tax Board return, any contracts "made in the state" during that period are "voidable" by the other party to the contract, subject to Section 23304.5.
VANGUARD STRATEGIES INC VS. IROQUOIS MASTER FUND LTD
37-2016-00017193-CU-BC-CTL
Nov 29, 2016
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that under the California Revenue and Taxation Code § 11930 and 62(d), a transfer to a trust does not change ownership, and is therefore not a taxable event. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that the Trusts have named beneficiaries, and as implied by their titles, are "family trusts" and include spouses. As a result, Plaintiff argues that the spousal named Defendants are proper parties, and may have an interest in the transfer to their "family trust."
CATHERINE M. HERRERA VS DARLENE AGARWALE
22TRCV00362
Nov 03, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
California Revenue and Taxation Code ("R&T Code") §6016 defines "tangible personal property" as "personal property which may be seen, weighed, measured, felt, or touched, or which is in any other manner perceptible to the senses." The R&T Code requires all retailers that sell tangible personal property to consumers to pay sales tax based on the receipts or money that the retailer receives in the transaction." (R&T Code §§6007, 6051, 6051.1.)
VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC VS. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
34-2016-00196022-CU-MC-GDS
Dec 06, 2016
Sacramento County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Plaintiff also cites to the California Revenue and Taxation Code §§ 11930 and 62(d) for the proposition that the transfers by the individual defendants to their status as trustees of a trust did not change ownership. Code of Civil Procedure § 872.550, entitled Joinder of all Persons Unknown Claiming any Interest is also of interest here.
CATHERINE M. HERRERA VS DARLENE AGARWALE
22TRCV00362
Feb 02, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Lastly, Defendants move for summary judgment on the ground that the Agreement is null and void for failing to comply with California Revenue and Taxation Code section 23304.1.
SKETCH INTERNATIONAL, LTD., A HONG KONG CORPORATION VS HEM & THREAD, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV14131
Jul 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Subsequent to Truck, California Revenue and Taxation Code § 19719, which makes it a crime for any person “to exercise the powers, rights, and privileges of a corporation that has been suspended,” was amended. Section 19719(b) now specifically excludes “any insurer, or counsel retained by an insurer on behalf of the suspended corporation, who provides a defense for a suspended corporation” from coming within the scope of this statute. Cal. Rev. & T.
SOUZA VS. K-MAG CONSTUCTION, INC.
30-2017-00909826-CU-OR-CJC
Jan 31, 2019
Orange County, CA
Here, by contrast, Nos. 15 and 16 do not require defendant to cite laws or regulations supporting the contention. ( See Sav-On, 15 Cal.3d at 5 [Both the California Revenue and Taxation Code and the California Administrative Code are as readily available to real party in interest as to petitioner and no purpose of discovery is served by compelling the latter to perform legal research for the former].) The Court finds that Nos. 15 and 16 permissibly seek defendants factual contentions.
BURLESQUE ENTERPRISE, INC. VS THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
21STCV40709
Apr 19, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, by contrast, Nos. 15 and 16 do not require defendant to cite laws or regulations supporting the contention. ( See Sav-On, 15 Cal.3d at 5 [Both the California Revenue and Taxation Code and the California Administrative Code are as readily available to real party in interest as to petitioner and no purpose of discovery is served by compelling the latter to perform legal research for the former].) The Court finds that Nos. 15 and 16 permissibly seek defendants factual contentions.
PEDRO CEREN, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF, ALL AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES, AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS A PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL VS AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV15983
Apr 19, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The language for the general COO statute under Prop 13 was enacted verbatim from The Task Force Report as Section 60 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code [1] . The California Supreme Court in Pacific, supra , at 1 Cal.4 th 162, cited to the fact that the language of Section 60 was adopted verbatim as evidence that the Legislature intended for section 60 to contain the overarching definition of a change of ownership for reassessment purposes.
EQUINIX, LLC, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
20STCV35469
Jun 14, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, USMs powers, rights and privileges were suspended by the California Franchise Tax Board pursuant to the provisions of the California Revenue and Taxation Code as of December 1, 2016. (See Lauber Decl., Ex. 2.) Accordingly, USM lacks capacity to defend or sue in this matter. The courts only qualm with the motion is that USM has been a named Defendant since the commencement of the action in 2018.
VIRGINA ASSET PARTNERS, LLC VS USM INVESTMENTS, INC.
KC070029
Nov 02, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff maintains the Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Board failed to timely comply with the provisions of California Revenue and Taxation Code sections 1604, et seq. [First Amend. Comp., ¶ 10.] The remaining first cause of action specifically and exclusively alleges an unlawful method of assessment seeking de novo review of the method of assessment applied... [First Amend. Comp., ¶ 16.]
RICK LADD VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
22STLC05464
Jan 24, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Prior to the hearing on April 29, 2021, Defendant filed a declaration attaching a certified copy of the California Secretary of State Certificate of Status regarding Ivy Bridge, which certifies that the California Franchise Tax Board forfeited the entity's powers, rights and privileges on March 01, 2021 pursuant to the provisions of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, and that those powers, rights, and privileges remained forfeited as of April 22, 2021. (Cullen Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.)
CHRISTINE SARTIAGUDA VS IVY BRIDGE GROUP INC
BC631423
Jul 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
In Sav-On the court found that a party cannot by discovery require disclosure of the specific statutes and administrative regulations supporting the tax deductions at issue because “the California Revenue and Taxation Code and the California Administrative Code are as readily available to real party in interest as to petitioner and no purpose of discovery is served by compelling the latter to perform legal research for the former.” (Id. at 5.)
MAGAZIOTIS VS. PAGLIA & ASSOCIATES CONSTRUCTION INC.
30-2017-00938939-CU-BC-CJC
Oct 24, 2019
Orange County, CA
California Revenue and Taxation Code §214 provides, “(a) Property used exclusively for religious... purposes owned and operated by community chests, funds, foundations, limited liability companies, or corporations organized and operated for religious, ...purposes is exempt from taxation...if: (1) The owner is not organized or operated for profit....(2) No part of the net earnings of the owner inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. (3) The property is used for the actual operation of
WORD FOR THE WORLD CHURCH INC VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
BC670204
Aug 29, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Cross-Complainants argued that LLC is prohibited from defending in this action because LLC failed to register or pay fees to conduct business in California per California Revenue and Taxation Code section 23301 and Timberline, Inc. v. Jaisinghani (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1361; Ransome-Crummey Co. v. Superior Court (1922) 188 Cal. 393, 396-397; Alhambra-Shumway Mines, Inc. v. Alhambra Gold Mine Corp. (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 46, 50-51.
SHABNAM AKHOUNDZADEH VS RICHARD KHATIBI, ET AL.
21VECV00692
Oct 04, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
. […] and as deemed appropriate by the board of directors of this corporation, to engage in the aforementioned contributional activities in support of and assistance to other organizations similarly qualified as exempt under the aforementioned provisions of the Internal Revenue Act of 1954 and the California Revenue and Taxation Code.” (Ibid. emphasis added.)
LEARNING ALLY, INC. V. PENINSULA ENDOWMENT
2019-CV-344264
Aug 29, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
Therefore, Defendant cannot defend or participate in this action pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 19719. Plaintiff also requests sanctions based on Defendant and Defendants counsel bad faith conduct under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 in pursuing litigation activities knowing that Defendant was a suspended entity. Based on the inadequate meet and confer process, the Court denies Plaintiffs motion to strike Answer and request for sanctions.
HOLLYPARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH VS NEW EARTH ORGANIZATION
20TRCV00175
Oct 05, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Background In this action, Plaintiff seeks a refund of taxes pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code section 6901 et seq. Plaintiff is an online retailer of weight loss and nutrition products. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff made sales in approximately 60 jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. In some of the sales to non-California customers, Plaintiff charged the customers a sales tax according to the tax rates of the customers’ jurisdiction.
34-2023-00333398-CU-MC-GDS
Feb 05, 2024
Sacramento County, CA
The Court will now restate the relevant statutes: California Revenue and Taxation Code ("R&T Code") §6016 defines "tangible personal property" as "personal property which may be seen, weighed, measured, felt, or touched, or which is in any other manner perceptible to the senses." The R&T Code requires all retailers that sell tangible personal property to consumers to pay sales tax based on the receipts or money that the retailer receives in the transaction." (R&T Code §§6007, 6051, 6051.1.)
VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC VS. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
34-2016-00196022-CU-MC-GDS
Mar 13, 2017
Sacramento County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
[stating I am compelled to inform this court that United Clinical Research, Inc., is a suspended corporation due to its inability to prepare its taxes under California Revenue and Taxation Code § 23301].) A suspended corporation loses all rights and privileges under the law, including the right to prosecute a lawsuit. ( Granny Purps, Inc. v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz (2020) 53 Cal. App. 5th 1, 10.)
UNITED CLINICAL RESEARCH, INC., ET AL. VS MICHAEL LANDVER, ET AL.
21STCV43580
Jun 24, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
On August 2, 2010, the California Franchise Tax Board forfeited Titan’s powers, rights and privileges pursuant to the California Revenue and Taxation Code. (RJN, exhibit 1.) Counsel for plaintiff, Jordan Porter, provides a declaration that he first learned of Titan’s corporate status at the end of January 2011, that he requested a certificate of status from the California Secretary of State on January 31, 2011, and received that certificate the week following April 14, 2011. (Porter decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)
SUDEEPTO DATTA VS TITAN APPAREL INC ET AL
1340520
Jun 06, 2011
Santa Barbara County, CA
Exhibits D, E, F, G, and H to Daly’s declaration are petitioner’s requests for information that were sent to CWI pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 441, subdivision (d). (Flood Dec., ¶4.) Exhibits I, J, and L to Daly’s declaration and Exhibit C to Flood’s declaration are documents that were provided by CWI to petitioner in response to petitioner’s requests for information. (Flood Dec., ¶¶ 3, 4.)
JOSEPH E. HOLLAND V. CWI SANTA BARBARA
19CV05525
Dec 09, 2019
Santa Barbara County, CA
As set forth above, NG Trucking provides evidence that the December 9, 2021 Certificate of Status concerning Plaintiff provides, inter alia , that [t]he records of this office indicate&the California Franchise Tax Board forfeited the entitys powers, rights and privileges on February 1, 2021, pursuant to the provisions of the California Revenue and Taxation Code; and the entitys powers, rights and privileges remain forfeited. (NG Truckings RJN, ¶ 1, Ex. M, p. 10.)
RECANA SOLUTIONS, LLC VS GIULIANO-PAGANO CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV41588
Dec 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND: On September 13, 2021, Plaintiffs Jack Rimokh and Joelle Rimokh filed their Complaint against Defendant California Franchise Tax Board pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code section 19382. On October 12, 2021, Defendant filed its Answer. On December 19, 2022, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment.
JACK RIMOKH, ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
21STCV33765
Mar 10, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On February 1, 2019, Smartvest’s rights and privileges to do business in California were forfeited by the California Franchise Tax Board for nonpayment of fees and taxes pursuant to the California Revenue and Taxation Code. (Dfds. RJN, Ex. C.) In California, “[a] corporation may not prosecute or defend an action while its corporate status is suspended.” Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 4 Cal.5th 637, 641.
SMARTVEST GROUP LLC V. D. STEPHEN SORENSEN, ET AL.
18CV03406
Oct 08, 2019
Santa Barbara County, CA
The Certificate states: “The limited liability company is hereby granted relief from contract voidability under section 23305.1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. All contracts entered into during the period for which relief is granted may be enforced in the same manner and to the same extent by all parties to any contracts and any third parties as if the contracts had not become voidable under section 23304.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.” (Dfd. RJN, Ex. D.)
KIMBERLY M JONES VS 1664 EVR LLC
18CV05766
Feb 07, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
GO-Biz responded to the Union’s CPRA request by claiming all documents were exempt under a provision of the California Revenue and Taxation Code and the CPRA’s “catch-all” exemption, and it informed the Union it would produce none of the responsive documents. (Calamuci Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. C.)
CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO 152 VS. GOVERNORS OFFICE OF BUSINESS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
2020-80003353
Jul 30, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.