Beginning in 2017, the City of Los Angeles imposed dramatically increased fees on commercial property owners and apartment owners through the recycLA franchise program — without the voter approval required by the California Constitution.
You may be a potential participant in Apartment Owners Association et al. v. City of Los Angeles (Case No. LASC BC677423) if you own or owned commercial or multifamily property in the City of Los Angeles and were subjected to the recycLA program's inflated franchise fees.
The lawsuit alleges that the City violated California Constitution Articles XIII C and D — commonly known as Proposition 218 — by imposing these fee increases without the required voter approval. Commercial property owners and apartment building owners may be entitled to recover unlawfully collected fees, interest, and additional remedies available under California law.
Qualified plaintiffs may seek reimbursement of unlawfully collected recycLA fees, interest on amounts improperly withheld, and other remedies available under California law. These charges and fees are being continuously billed and paid by property owners and even increasing over time.
What the City publicly called an environmental initiative concealed a dramatic and unlawful revenue increase imposed on over 80,000 commercial and multifamily property owners. Here is the documented record.
California voters approved limits on ad valorem property taxes and required legislative supermajorities for state tax increases. This landmark measure added Article XIII A to the California Constitution and launched the modern era of taxpayer protection in California.
Voters codified Government Code § 53720 et seq., requiring voter approval for new local general taxes or tax increases. The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 62's constitutionality in Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino (1995) 11 Cal.4th 220.
Authored and principally sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Proposition 218 added Articles XIII C and XIII D to the California Constitution, placing broad voter and fee-payer approval requirements on all local taxes, assessments, and property-related fees and charges.
Proposition 218 — the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act" — was approved by California voters in November 1996 as a constitutional amendment. It was a direct response to decades of local government abuse of taxing and fee-setting authority. Article XIII C prohibits local governments from imposing, extending, or increasing any general tax without majority voter approval, and any special tax without a two-thirds vote. Article XIII D governs property-related fees and charges, requiring that revenues not exceed the cost of the service, not be applied to any purpose other than that for which the fee is imposed, and that fee amounts not exceed the proportional cost attributable to the parcel.
As a constitutional provision, Proposition 218 supersedes and takes priority over any contradictory provisions in the City of Los Angeles Charter or ordinances. The City's dramatic fee increases under the recycLA program — imposed without any voter approval, public notice, or election — are alleged to be a direct and ongoing violation of Proposition 218's core protections.
Citizen access to meaningful legal remedies is essential for holding local governments accountable. Plaintiffs in AOA v. City of Los Angeles seek to enforce those constitutional protections on behalf of the tens of thousands of property owners who were unlawfully taxed.
The complaint was filed on September 27, 2017 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The case is captioned Apartment Owners Association of California, Inc., et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.
The lawsuit alleges that the City's franchise fee increases constitute an illegal tax imposed in violation of Proposition 218 because it was never submitted to or approved by the voters. Plaintiffs allege that these revenues flow into the City's General Fund and are therefore general taxes requiring majority voter approval, or, in the alternative, property-related fees subject to Article XIII D's notice and protest procedures.
The City of Los Angeles, through its counsel, has advanced various procedural defenses, including arguments under the Health & Safety Code's "pay-under-protest" provisions (§ 5472) and challenges to class certification. The litigation is ongoing. Counsel continues to actively seek and add participants. If you have not contacted Shining Law Inc., the time is now.
Shining Law Inc. is a California-licensed litigation boutique led by Carolin K. Shining, Esq. (State Bar No. 201140). It concentrates its practice on commercial litigation, trust disputes and intellectual property matters, with particular depth in constitutional challenges to local government taxation and fee-setting authority.
Attorney Shining has been counsel of record in Apartment Owners Association et al. v. City of Los Angeles since its inception in 2017. The firm's direct engagement with affected property owners, combined with its command of California's complex constitutional tax law under Propositions 13, 62, and 218, positions it uniquely to pursue the rights of the over 80,000 property owners impacted by the recycLA program.
Representation in the AOA v. COLA matter is pursued in conjunction with co-counsel Arias Sanguinetti Wang, LLP, recognized leaders in California class action litigation.
Deadlines to join are approaching. If you are a commercial property owner, apartment owner, commercial tenant, or HOA in Los Angeles that paid recycLA fees, contact us immediately for a free, confidential consultation. There is no cost to you to explore your options.