Schmeer v. County of Los Angeles
153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Los Angeles County ordinance prohibits plastic carryout bags and requires a 10-cent charge for recyclable paper bags; funds from the charge are retained by retailers for compliance, bag costs, or promotional costs.
- Health Programs (WIC, etc.) recipients are exempt from the charge and must receive free bags.
- The ordinance became effective July 1, 2011 and was not voter-approved.
- Petitioners allege the paper bag charge is a tax under Prop 26, violating Art. XIII C; trial court found it not a tax due to retention by retailers and lack of county remittance.
- The trial court also considered an exception under Prop 26 if the charge conferred a specific benefit at or above reasonable costs, and found substantial evidence supporting use of funds for required purposes.
- The appellate court reviews questions of law de novo and findings of fact for substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the paper carryout bag charge a tax under Prop 26? | Schmeer argues the charge is a tax governed by Art. XIII C, §2. | County contends the charge is not a tax because funds go to retailers, not the government. | Not a tax; charge retained by retailer. |
| If a tax, do Prop 26 exceptions apply to negate the tax status? | Prop 26 exceptions could apply to exclude what is charged as a tax. | Exceptions limit only to government-conferred benefits and government costs. | Ruling on exceptions deemed unnecessary—the charge is not a tax. |
| Are severability or related provisions controlling if the charge were a tax? | If treated as a tax, provisions might be invalidated. | Not addressed if the charge is not a tax. | Moot; not necessary to decide severability since the charge is not a tax. |
Key Cases Cited
- Professional Engineers in California Government v. Kempton, 40 Cal.4th 1016 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 2007) (standard of review; construction of constitutional provisions and statutes)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 2011) (interpretation of voter initiatives; plain meaning governs)
- Robert L. v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.4th 758 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 2003) (intent of electorate; context of initiative language)
- Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d 208 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 1978) (Proposition 13 interlocking package of tax limitations)
- Los Angeles County Transportation Comm. v. Richmond, 31 Cal.3d 197 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 1982) (two-thirds voting for taxes; special district interpretation)
- City and County of San Francisco v. Farrell, 32 Cal.3d 47 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 1982) (two-thirds vote requirement; applies to special taxes with limited scope)
- Rider v. County of San Diego, 1 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 1991) (local agency circumvention of Prop. 13 via new taxes; special districts)
- Knox v. City of Orland, 4 Cal.4th 132 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 1992) (special assessment vs. special tax distinction)
- Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 15 Cal.4th 866 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 1997) (fees vs taxes; regulatory fees may be non-taxes if costs are reasonable and nexus exists)
- Apartment Ass’n of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 24 Cal.4th 830 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 2001) (Prop. 218 limits on fees; fees on property owners; not all costs are taxes)