Laserfiche WebLink
Michael G. Colantuono <br />MColantuono @CHWLAW. US <br />(530) 432 -7359 <br />September 26, 2014 <br />VIA E -MAIL AND U.S. MAIL <br />Jose Sandoval, Esq. <br />Chief Assistant City Attorney <br />City of Santa Ana <br />20 Civic Center Plaza, M -29' <br />P. O. Box 1988 <br />Santa Ana, CA 92702 <br />Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC <br />300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2700 <br />Los Angeles, CA 90071 -3137 <br />Main: (213) 542 -5700 <br />FAX: (213) 542 -5710 <br />WWW.CHWLAW.US <br />Re: Proposal to Defend Ruiz v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior <br />Court Case No, 30- 2014- 0073682&CU- MC -CXC <br />Dear Mr. Sandoval: <br />Thank you for the opportunity to propose our services to the City of Santa Ana in <br />defense of Girardi & Keese's class action challenge to the City's amendment of its <br />telephone users tax to clarify its incorporation of the Federal Excise Tax on Telephony <br />(FET). We are well qualified and would be pleased to do so. <br />EXPERTISE. As you know, our firm is the leader in defending California's local <br />governments in class action challenges to revenue measures. We argued the two leading <br />California Supreme Court cases on this issue: Ardon v. City of Los Angeles and <br />McWilliams v. City of Los Angeles and are defending those cases on remand to the trial <br />court. We have advised dozens of California cities on the FET issue and on other <br />telephone tax issues. Indeed, we advised Santa Ana on this issue in 2011. We advised it <br />more recently on its general fund transfer from its utility enterprise funds. <br />Our current telephone tax disputes include defense of some 40 cities in Sipple v. <br />Hayward, a challenge to the application of phone taxes to packages including internet <br />telephony and several challenges to the application of Los Angeles' telephone tax, as <br />well as Ardon and McWilliams. Our current class action case load includes these, as well <br />138607.1 <br />25H -3 <br />