Riverside employment lawyers

Plaintiff taxpayers appealed a judgment
For defendant city
Entered in the Superior Court
Of Los Angeles County (California)
In their suit's for a refund of taxes they
Paid pursuant to Los Angeles Business
Tax Ordinance §§ 211681, 21190

Plaintiff taxpayers manufactured
And delivered military weapons, equipment
And supplies for the federal government some
Of their shipments were made on
Government bills of lading others were made
On commercial bills of lading
Plaintiffs reported the gross
Receipts from their
Government contracts to defendant city
But excluded the receipts
Attributable to property shipped outside
The state by bills of lading defendant
Assessed tax deficiencies
Riverside employment lawyers plaintiffs paid
Plaintiffs then brought
Complaints for refunds the court reversed
The trial court's order in
Favor of defendant plaintiffs
Were taxable on their gross
Receipts under Los
Angeles Business Tax Ordinance
§§ 21166, 21167, not under
Los Angeles Business Tax Ordinance § 21190
As defendant asserted plaintiffs'
Processes of sale and service were
Commercially inseparable and could not be
Assessed separately plaintiffs were taxable
On gross receipts for
Shipments on government bills of lading
These were not exempted
By Los Angeles Business Tax
Ordinance § 211681
As were those shipments made on
Commercial bills of lading

The court reversed the judgment
For defendant city
Holding that plaintiff taxpayers
Could be taxed on their gross receipts from
Government contracts but that they were
Not taxable under the
Higher rate of a catch-all
Ordinance provision the
Court also held plaintiffs liable for gross
Receipts attributable to shipments to
Points outside the
State on government bills of lading
But not on commercial bills of lading

Plaintiff brought an action charging
Defendant and others with
Violating the California Uniform
Trade Secrets Act
(CUTSA) , Civ code, § 3426, et seq
By misappropriating certain trade secrets
Belonging to plaintiff the Superior Court
Of Santa Clara County, California
Dismissed the complaint plaintiff petitioned
For a writ of
Mandate directing the trial court to set
Aside it's order of dismissal and to permit
The matter to proceed to trial

Not long after filing suit, plaintiff
Went through bankruptcy proceedings
Selling it's rights in the
Alleged trade secrets
While reserving it's rights of action
For misappropriation commencing before
The date of the transfer despite the efforts
By defendant's counsel to conjure up
A "current ownership rule, " the
Court found no support for such a
Rule in the text of the
California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Civ
Code, § 3426, et seq, cases applying it
Or legislative history nor did
The court find any
Evidence of such a rule in
Patent or copyright law, which
Defendants cited by analogy
Defendants offered
No persuasive argument from policy
For the court's adoption of
Such a rule although
There might be situations where a
Suit by a former
Owner raised concerns about the
Rights of absent parties
Or a risk of multiple
Or inconsistent liabilities
On the part of parties before the court
The remedy for such concerns
Rested in California's liberal
And highly flexible procedures
For the permissive or compulsory joinder of
Parties because plaintiff's
Sale of the trade secrets
Was not an impediment to it's
Maintenance of it's action
The trial court erred by
Dismissing the complaint

The court issued a peremptory writ
Of mandate directing the trial
Court to set aside it's
Order dismissing plaintiff's claims
And to proceed with their adjudication in a
Manner consistent with the court's opinion