28
Public Comment
From:Konstantinos Roditis <
Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 12:14 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Agenda Item # 28 - Taxi Franchise
Attachments:AGT - 2020 Sept 15 LTR Anaheim City Council w attachmts bkmd.pdf
Here are the public comments from Maryann Cazzell for Cazzell & Associates in regards to tonight's
taxicab franchise public hearing.
1
CAZZELL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS
505 N. Tustin Ave., Sate. 276
Santa Ana, CA 92705
(714) 558-1772 tel.
(714) 558-1883 fax.
September 15, 2020
TO: THE HON. HARRY S. SIDHU, MAYOR
AND THE HON. LUCILLE KRING, MAYOR
PRO TEM;
AND TO CITY COUNCILPERSONS
DENISE BARNES
JORDAN BRANDMAN
JOSE F. MORENO
STEPHEN FAESSEL
and
TREVOR O’NEIL
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
200 S. Anaheim Blvd., City Council Chambers
Anaheim, CA 92805
_____________________________________________________________
RE: ITEM #28 on September 15, 2020 ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA (Proposed Taxicab Franchise Awards;)
Procedural and Legal Mistakes and Violations permeating the
Recommendations of the Anaheim Planning and Building Department
(“STAFF”) and the Taxicab Advisory Committee (“TAC”) to issue in
excess of fifty (50) taxicab franchises pursuant to the Request for
Proposal (“RFP”) circulated by Staff on July 15, 2020; Demand that
these 50 taxicab franchises be awarded to American Ground
Transportation dba 24/7 Taxi Cab (“AGT”;)
Demand that any award of up to one hundred fifty-five (155) of the
taxicab franchises previously given to Yellow Cab of Greater Orange
County (“Yellow Cab”) in the year 2012 be done by a separate RFP;
and Objection of proposed award of 155 taxicab franchises to CABCO,
INC. dba California Yellow Cab (“CABCO”.)
Dear Gentlepersons:
This firm represents AGT in these proceedings; which include without
limitation, matters concerning Agenda Item #28 now before you.
I write in response and opposition to Anaheim’s Recommendation to adopt
the Recommendations of TAC as stated in Staff’s September 15, 2020
Agenda Report, to award 155 Anaheim taxicab franchises, or to award
any
number of franchises, to CABCO pursuant to the RFP circulated on July 15,
2020. Following either course would be wrongful.
I. ANAHEIM WAS REQUIRED TO ISSUE AN RFP FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF 50 TAXICAB FRANCHISES ALONE.
As also noted in the written material submitted by Konstantinos Roditis
(President of AGT) related to this Agenda Item, Anaheim was required by
the Courts to initiate a new RFP for the issuance of an isolated 50 taxicab
franchises. This requirement was in the form of a FILED ORDER dated
October 31, 2019 and entered by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District
of California, Third Division (“COA”) in Appellate Case #G055501, and
made final upon issuance of its Remittitur on February 14, 2020.
Immediately thereafter, Anaheim should have begun the process of issuing
the 50-franchise RFP, which could have been completed by early March
2020 at the latest. Anaheim absolutely should not have waited until July 15,
2020, four-and-a-half months later, to do this.
The COA made it abundantly clear that the RFP was to be limited to “those
50 taxicab permits.” (COA Opinion, page 26.)
These facts are detailed in the recent Court paperwork filed in ongoing
Orange County Superior Court case #30-2013-00688977-CU-MC-CJC,
styled as (the “AGT Case”) Portions of
AGT v. The City of Anaheim .
various court documents from the AGT case are attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
What is bookmarked here as Exhibit “A1” is pages 3-5 of AGT’s Brief
submitted in support of its Motion, that literally traced the 50 franchise
2
permits in question, all the way back to the 2012 RFP. These very franchise
permits were awarded to A White and Yellow Cab, Inc. dba A Taxi Cab
(“AWYC,”) which held onto them until the Spring of 2016 when it went out
of business. But in the AGT Case the Orange County Superior Court
(“OCSC”) had already held in June 2016 that Anaheim had acted
unconstitutionally in its August 2012 Rehearing award of those very same
permits (to AWYC;) and that, accordingly, the hearing had to be re-done.
So, new City Council proceedings took place in Anaheim in the Fall of
2016, that paid only “lip-service” to the OCSC Order. Despite AGT’s fully-
compliant RFP paperwork, Anaheim “split up” the 50 AWYC franchises
between Yellow Cab and CABCO, and called it a day.
It was Anaheim’s Fall 2016 action that the COA declared unlawful, and this
is what lead the COA to ORDER Anaheim to issue a new RFP for those
same 50 permits. This is the task, and the only task, that should now be
before you.
Anaheim Staff and TAC now “recommend” that these 50 permits, the same
ones directly traceable back to2012, be awarded to AGT. In so
at last,
doing, Anaheim admits without condition, that AGT should have, and
should have had, these same 50 permits, from way back in 2012. AGT lost a
mint of money, not to mention loss of market share and other economic
opportunity, from being
deprived of those permits for over eight (8) years.
AGT continues to lose income and economic opportunities from Anaheim’s
failure and refusal to have granted AGT those particular permits back in
2012. Just one obvious example of additional losses caused by Anaheim, is
TAC’s degrading of AGT’s current RFP submittal, on the grounds that AGT
did not have experience operating in Anaheim! In addition to being untrue,
had Anaheim not treated AGT unfairly, unconstitutionally, and illegally in
2012, 2016, now, and at all points in between,
AGT would have been
and would have scored as much
operating in Anaheim for all of those years
as another 13.8 in the first three categories of TAC’s current RFP Scoring
evaluation, bringing AGT’s scoring to at least a total of a 76.0 or higher.
As it is, Anaheim, despite grading AGT with a “62.2" (%) RFP score, still is
now willing to award it 50 franchise stickers. AGT posits that the real
reason that this is so, is that (as explained and in its paperwork in the AGT
3
Case,) Anaheim has manipulated these administrative proceedings in such a
way that an award of 50 franchise stickers has very little value (since
Anaheim proposes to simultaneously award CABCO a taxicab monopoly of
over eighty percent (80%+) of the Anaheim franchises.)
But the discussion should take place. The scoring given AGT by TAC, is
the lowest ever given in the relevant proceedings! In 2012 TAC graded
AGT with a score of 62.25%. In 2016, that score had gone up to 66.60
percent! Yet at that time, Anaheim and its attorneys insisted that any score
in the “60s” was not even a “passing score!” So why, suddenly, is 62.2
percent not only “passing,” but “passing” enough to justify an award of 50
franchises?
II. ANAHEIM HAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AND
WRONGFULLY EXPANDED THIS RFP INTO ONE INCLUDING
YELLOW CAB’S SUBSEQUENTLY-AVAILABLE 155
FRANCHISES, WHICH EMASCULATES MOST OF THE
ADVANTAGE TO AGT FROM ACQUIRING 50 FRANCHISES.
A more detailed explanation of this phenomenon, and how and why it works
to effectively deny AGT of the real value of the 50 permits (that Anaheim
suddenly recommends be awarded to it,) is contained at the portion of the
AGT Case MOVING papers attached and bookmarked as “A2,” and that
portion of the REPLY papers attached and bookmarked as “B1.” It is also
addressed in the paperwork simultaneously submitted by AGT pertaining to
this Agenda Item. In summary,
the action that Staff and TAC recommend
that the City adopt, awarding AGT 50 franchises, and an additional 155 to
CABCO (which will then hold 205 franchises,) that
so dilutes the market
AGT cannot reasonably expect to make a profit. This violates
Anaheim
(“”)4.75.045.040, because it unduly burdens AGT as
Municipal Code AMC
the other franchisee and prevents it from realistically having an opportunity
to make a profit. It also creates an unlawful “monolopy” in favor of
CABCO (because it causes CABCO to hold a market share of over 80%.)
If Anaheim truly believes that its city requires
nowmore than 100 taxicabs
(plus a 15% overage,) then it is free to initiate a
on the road in Anaheim
RFP for the same - an RFP of up to the remaining 155 “treasury
separate
4
stock” franchises allowed by the But it may not do so now, through
AMC.
this COA-Ordered RFP for “those 50 permits.”
III. CABCO’S RECENT ILLEGAL AND FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY
IN KNOWINGLY VIOLATING THE FRANCHISE AND THE
AMC
BY OPERATING VEHICLES AS ANAHEIM TAXICABS WITHOUT
AUTHORIZATION AND PRIOR TO A NEW FRANCHISE AWARD,
SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED BY AN AWARD OF
ADDITIONAL
FRANCHISES (ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT THE SAME ARE NOT
EVEN ALLOWED UNDER THIS RFP IN THE FIRST PLACE!)
ample
AGT has presented to the OCSC, and also submits herewith,
evidence
proving that CABCO has been using Yellow Cab’s previously-
franchised vehicles, and operating them in the City just as if they belonged
to CABCO and were part of CABCO’s franchise. This is not true, of course,
and could not be true.
Even as of this date, CABCO holds only 50
Yellow Cab’s franchises are non-transferable (4.73.120,)
franchises.AMC
and do not belong to, nor may they be used by, CABCO. AGT has also
submitted to the OCSC and submits herewith, documentary evidence, that
CABCO has been using as part of its Anaheim franchise fleet, vehicles that
exceed the maximum model year date allowed, a further violation of
AMC
4.73.030.
In addition to the evidence attested to in AGT’s submission of this date,
AGT references the following evidence of CABCO’s unlawful acts and
breaches of the franchise, set forth in particular inthe AGT Case’s MOTION
paperwork (Ex. “A”) at p. iii(H) & pp. 2-3; and in the AGT Case’s REPLY
paperwork at pp. 1 & 5-7. Further evidence in the form of actual
photographs of CABCO’s wrongful acts in breach of the franchise, including
its use of Yellow Cab vehicles and franchise stickers that did not belong to
it, to pick up fares in the City, and its use of overage vehicles as part of its
Anaheim franchise fleet, is included in the AGT Case document attached
hereto as Exhibit “C,” the Declaration of Savvas Roditis and its attachments.
CABCO’s surreptitious operation of Yellow Cab vehicles is not a “no harm,
no foul” event. In so doing, CABCO has violated the and has
AMC
committed a misdemeanor. Anaheim has the right to (and frankly, should,)
5
fine and cite CABCO under 4.73,170, and either terminate CABCO’s
AMC
franchise under 4.73.100 or temporarily suspend it under
AMCAMC
4.73.110. It should strip CABCO of of its taxi franchises, give it
allnot
more! And not give it so many taxi franchises that it creates and
certainly
hands CABCO an unlawful monopoly!
To conclude, the franchise for consideration, by legal edict, must be limited
to an award of “those 50 franchises” that were awarded to AWYC in 2012
(and subsequently revoked by the OCSC’s 2016 Order finding the award
unconstitutional;) then awarded in a split between CABCO and Yellow Cab
(25 each) in 2016 (which award was subsequently held to be unlawful by the
COA in 2019;) and now, finally, up for the COA-Ordered RFP in 2020.
Any RFP for the remaining 155 “treasury stock” franchises, or any portion
of them, must take place .
later
Should the City proceed to award any portion of those additional 155
franchises, it should be 50 of them, and they should go to AGT. AGT has
been pursuing a franchise for an aggregate of 100 stickers, since 2012; and
has been qualified to receive them, every time. The unfairness, bias, and
ethnic discrimination must stop.
Thank you in advance for reviewing and considering the contents of this
letter and its attachments.
Very Truly Yours,
/S/ Maryann Cazzell
MARYANN CAZZELL
MC:sc
cc: Client
Attachments: AGT Case documents
6
Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 07/29/2020 04:01:00 PM.
30-2013-00688977-CU-MC-CJC - ROA # 435 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By Jonathan Aguilar, Deputy Clerk.
CAZZELL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS
2
MARYANN CAZZELL, ESQ.
(Bar #128780)
505 N. Tustin Ave., Ste. 276
3
Santa Ana, California 92705
Telephone: 714/558-1772
4
Telefax: 714/558-1883
cazzell@msn.com
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Moving party AMERICAN
6
GROUND TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California Corporation,
doing business as 24/7 Taxi Cab
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIAFOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT CENTER, UNLIMITED
:
21
AMERICAN GROUND TRANSPORTATION,)CASE NO.: 30-2013-00688977-CU-
22
INC., A California Corporation, doing business)MC-CJC
as 24/7 Taxi Cab, )\[REASSIGNED FOR ALL
23
)PURPOSES TO THE HON.
)GLENN R. SALTER, DEPT. C-22\]
24
Plaintiff,)
)NOTICE OF MOTION AND
25
)MOTION OF PLAINTIFF
vs.)AMERICAN GROUND
26
)TRANSPORTATION, INC. FOR
)AN IMMEDIATE AWARD OF
27
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, DOES 1)FIFTY TAXICAB FRANCHISES
THROUGH 100,)UPON SHOWING OF ACTUAL
28
)BIAS ON THE PART OF
Defendants.)ANAHEIM, PURSUANT TO
29
)OCTOBER 31, 2019 COURT OF
)APPEAL OPINION IN CASE
2:
)#G055501; MEMORANDUM IN
)SUPPORT THEREOF
31
)\[DECLARATIONS OF SAVVAS
)AND KONSTANTINOS RODITIS
32
)SUBMITTED SEPARATELY
)AND CONCURRENTLY\]
33
)
)HEARING DATE: 8/20/2020
34
)TIME: 9:30 a.m.
)DEPT.: C-22
35
\[RESERVATION # 73345479\]
)
)
36
)
)REMITTITUR ISSUANCE DATE:
37
)2/14/2020
)
38
)COMPLT. FIL’G DATE: 11/21/13
_______________________________________)TRIAL DATE: NONE
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, TO DEFENDANT/RESPONDING PARTY
2
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (“ANAHEIM”) AND TO MOSES W. JOHNSON, IV.,
3
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD HEREIN, AND TO
4
ALL OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL:
5
6
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on August 20, 2020, at 9:30 a.m., or as
7
soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Dept. C-22 of the above-captioned Court,
8
located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, PLAINTIFF/MOVING
9
PARTY AMERICAN GROUND TRANSPORTATION, INC. (hereinafter “AGT”) will
:
and does hereby move this Court for an Order for an immediate award of fifty
21
ANAHEIM taxicab franchises upon the showing of actual bias on the part of ANAHEIM,
22
pursuant to the October 31, 2019 OPINION issued by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth
23
District of California, Division Three (“COA”) in case #G055501 (“OPINION,”) and for
24
further or alternative relief. This Motion is made on the following grounds:
25
(A) That by means of the OPINION, AGT was determined to be the
26
prevailing party on the Seventh Cause of Action Writ of the Supplemental Complaint
27
filed in this case in 2017, which itself followed up on ANAHEIM’s failure to have
28
conducted an entirely new REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (“RFP”) in October 2016 (rather
29
than a cursory “Rehearing,”) despite the finding of the Trial Court’s June 20, 2016
2:
MINUTE ORDER (“MINUTE ORDER”) in favor of AGT on its Fourth Cause of Action
31
Writ taken from ANAHEIM’s franchise award in the year 2012;
32
(B) That by means of its OPINION the COA ORDERED ANAHEIM to
33
issue a new RFP for the 50 franchise stickers that had belonged to the former third
34
ANAHEIM taxicab franchisee A WHITE AND YELLOW CAB, INC. (“A TAXI,”) but
35
which later became available after A TAXI’s franchise was terminated by ANAHEIM in
36
the Fall of 2016;
37
(C) That in the Fall of 2016, ANAHEIM had scheduled a City Council
38
Hearing to terminate A TAXI’s fifty franchises to take place immediately prior to the
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
jj
Rehearing to award those very franchises in an equal split to its remaining taxicab
2
franchisees (25 to YELLOW CAB OF GREATER ORANGE COUNTY (“YELLOW
3
CAB”) and 25 to CABCO, INC. dba CALIFORNIA YELLOW CAB (“CABCO”),) to the
4
exclusion of AGT;
5
(D) That AGT maintains that in 2016 ANAHEIM had knowingly allowed
6
YELLOW CAB and CABCO each to use their additional 25 taxi franchises (those
7
formerly used by A TAXI) as early as April/May 2016 right after A TAXI had gone out
8
of business, before ANAHEIM had even terminated A TAXI’s franchise, and prior to the
9
time that it had held any sort of public hearing whatsoever about redistributing A TAXI’s
:
fifty franchise permits;
21
(E) That in the REVERSAL Order of the OPINION, the COA only chose
22
to “decline (AGT’s) invitation to order the City to award it 50 taxicab permits in the first
23
instance” specifically because it had concluded that “AGT has not demonstrated actual
24
bias” (OPINION page 22;) yet at the same time, the COA was quick to clarify that “\[O\]ur
25
conclusion does not preclude AGT from asserting bias in future proceedings, supported
26
by concrete facts and not baseless allegations” Ibid.;
27
(F) That at the urging of this Court, ANAHEIM officially terminated
28
YELLOW CAB’s taxi franchise on July 14, 2020, simultaneously with ANAHEIM’s
29
termination of YELLOW CAB’s 25 permits as Ordered by the COA (which 25-permit
2:
“reduction” “staff did not have time to complete” by the time YELLOW CAB ceased
31
1
operations,) but made no specific reference to a termination of CABCO’s 25 permits as
32
Ordered by the COA; and that on the following day, July 15, 2020, ANAHEIM issued
33
and circulated a new RFP for up to two hundred five (205) new taxicab franchises, but for
34
a duration of only about two years, and still without making any specific reference to a
35
termination of CABCO’s 25 permits as required by the COA in its OPINION;
36
///
37
38
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT for July 14, 2020 Agenda Item #26,
2
page 2.
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
jjj
(G) That ANAHEIM represented at the last Court Hearing in this case held
2
July 16, 2020 that CABCO had turned in or had otherwise stopped using the 25
3
ANAHEIM franchises that the COA had ordered be taken from it and put out for bid
4
under a new RFP, assuring the Court that CABCO was then only operating in ANAHEIM
5
under its remaining 50 taxicab franchises; and
6
AGT now has documentary proof that CABCO is now and
(H) That
7
already operating taxicabs in ANAHEIM well in excess of those allowed under its
8
franchise
; and that this evidence now before this Court establishes the actual bias
9
necessary to allow this Court to exercise its discretion to direct ANAHEIM to award the
:
fifty taxicab franchises directly to AGT for the regular 10-year franchise period.
21
22
This MOTION is based upon this NOTICE OF MOTION, on the attached
23
MEMORANDUM, on the concurrently-submitted DECLARATIONS OF SAVVAS
24
RODITIS and KONSTANTINOS RODITIS, on the contents of any and all Responses to
25
each Public Records Request (“PRR”) submitted to ANAHEIM and/or to the ORANGE
26
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (“OCTA”) on behalf of the ORANGE
27
COUNTY TAXI ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAM (“OCTAP”) in July or August 2020
28
related to this Motion, and on such other matters of which JUDICIAL NOTICE may
29
respectfully be invited prior to or at the time of the hearing of the Motion, on all of the
2:
pleadings, papers and documents on file herein, and on such oral and documentary
31
evidence as may be presented at the time of the hearing.
32
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
33
CAZZELL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS
34
35
/S/ Maryann Cazzell
DATED: July 28, 2020
36
By:_________________________________
MARYANN CAZZELL, ESQ.
37
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Moving Party
AMERICAN GROUND
38
TRANSPORTATION, INC.
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
jw
MEMORANDUM
2
3
1. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT OF CASE POSTURE:
4
By now this Court is reasonably familiar with the current posture of this
5
2013 case, involving ongoing attempts by AGT (in relevant part a taxicab operator) to
6
secure the right to be able to operate in ANAHEIM. The Court’s first hearing upon
7
2
remand, held June 25, 2020, was a combined Joint Status Conference and a hearing on
8
the parties’ cross-motions, the salient one being AGT’s Motion to Set Matter for Jury
9
Trial or related relief.
:
In both its TENTATIVE RULING and in Open (Court-Call) Court, the
21
Court directed ANAHEIM to comply with the orders of the COA, and to supply the Court
22
with a copy of its RFP. Since neither of these directives had yet been accomplished, the
23
Court asked about ANAHEIM’s upcoming City Council hearing pertaining to the RFP.
24
Learning that such hearing was scheduled for July 14, 2020, the Court advanced the
25
follow-up Further Status Conference to July 16th.
26
th
Prior to the July 16 continued hearing, AGT submitted via a REQUEST
27
FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (“RJN,”) ANAHEIM’s complete CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
28
th
REPORT for Item #26 on the July 14 calendar (“AGENDA REPORT,”) concerning the
29
termination of the taxicab franchise of YELLOW CAB. The Court granted that RJN at
2:
the time of the hearing. ANAHEIM’s counsel indicated that it had submitted its own
31
RJN, a copy of the RFP it had circulated on July 15, 2020. While it hadn’t been
32
processed by the Court as of the time of the hearing, AGT’s counsel acknowledged
33
having reviewed the same.
34
th
At the July 16 hearing, the Court generally discussed the AGENDA
35
REPORT and the RFP with counsel. AGT’s counsel noted that there were several
36
problems with the RFP as drafted, chief among them being:
37
38
This was delayed for several months per the Orange County Superior Court’s
3
Administrative Orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
2
1) That instead of issuing a separate RFP limited to the 50 taxi franchises as ordered
2
up to 205
by the COA, ANAHEIM had issued a single RFP soliciting public bids for
3
taxicab franchises;
4
2) That prior to even issuing the RFP, ANAHEIM had failed to conduct its customary
5
“public convenience and necessity” study, performed by a nationwide taxicab expert, for
6
the purpose of determining how many taxicab franchises ANAHEIM actually needed at
7
this time (which was substantially less that slated due both to the COVID-19 pandemic
8
and the prevalence of non-taxi for-hire vehicles operating in competition to taxicabs, such
9
as “UBER” or “LYFT”-type Transportation Network Companies” (TNCs”),) and that the
:
ANAHEIM transportation market would be flooded with more taxicabs than needed; and
21
3) That the term of the franchise offered by the RFP, was limited to about two years
22
rather than the typical ten-year period ANAHEIM had offered in recent years, which
23
longer period was necessary so that a new franchisee had a realistic ramp-up period
24
within which to amortize its purchase new or newer vehicles and equipment, which costs
25
would be over $1,000,000 for the (minium-allowed) fifty-cab fleet.
26
The Court and counsel also briefly discussed the possibility that the
27
franchise might ultimately be found to violate a new law initiated as “AB 1069" and now
28
codified as Cal. Govt. Code sections 53075.51 et seq., which was enacted for the purpose
29
and with the intent of “opening up” municipal borders for taxicab operations so that taxis
2:
could have a prayer of remaining in business despite crushing governmental regulations,
31
and having to compete alongside TNCs.
32
AGT argued that ANAHEIM had still not required CABCO to “give back”
33
the 25 “vacated” permits as Ordered by the COA, so that these, along with the 25
34
“vacated”permits then held by YELLOW CAB, could be put out for the 50-franchise RFP
35
as directed in the OPINION. AGT opined that in fact CABCO was still operating in
36
ANAHEIM using its legitimate 50 franchises PLUS the 25 it was required to give back;
37
pointing out that ANAHEIM had never done the required TERMINATION hearing (just
38
as it had to do for YELLOW CAB on July 14th, evidenced in the AGENDA REPORT.)
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
3
ANAHEIM’s counsel steadfastly denied that CABCO was still using those 25 permits
2
that were supposed to have been included in the COA-ordered RFP, stating that it had
3
some sort of documentation for this.
4
To date, AGT has been made aware of no such documentation. It has,
5
however, been made aware of this:
6
ANAHEIM HAS BEEN COMPLICIT IN CABCO’S
7
UNDERHANDED SCHEME TO USE THE ANAHEIM FRANCHISE
8
STICKERS STILL AFFIXED TO YELLOW CAB’S VEHICLES TO
9
OPERATE FAR MORE THAN ITS 50 ANAHEIM FRANCHISES.
:
21
II. AT ISSUE ARE THE VERY SAME 50 ANAHEIM FRANCHISE STICKERS AS WERE
22
ORIGINALLY AWARDED TO A TAXI BY MEANS OF ANAHEIM’S RFP OF MAY 2012.
23
A bit of “tracing” is in order, as the 50 subject franchises are not of the
24
“fungible” variety. They had a genesis, and it was the May 2012 taxicab franchise
25
3
awards. These 50 franchises were those same ones originally awarded to A TAXI, then.
26
27
28
29
Possibly more accurately, they were first awarded to A TAXI at the time of the first
4
ANAHEIM taxicab franchise which commenced on February 14, 2002. The other franchisees
2:
were YELLOW CAB, for 130 permits, and CABCO, for its 50 permits.
31
As this Court has been made aware, CABCO only squeaked into the franchise at the last minute.
With its lackluster “70" RFP score, CABCO was not slated to receive a single franchise sticker.
32
It snatched victory from the jaws of defeat as a substitute for AMERICAN LIVERY, INC. dba
AMERICAN TAXI, which would have been the third franchisee with 50 permits, but for its
33
going out of business in the wake of 9/11, a catastrophic event for taxicabs holding airport
contracts (it then held the John Wayne Airport Concession Contract.)
!
34
The 2002 franchises were for a 5-year term, with 5 “rolling” one-year extensions, requiring each
35
company to request an additional year’s extension, at the conclusion of each year. None of the
companies got this exactly right; and A TAXI got it the “least right.” Thus staggered renewal
36
requests began in 2007, when A TAXI’s 50 permits went up for bid under a new RFP.
37
The City Council chose to solve this inconsistency by consolidating the timing of all of the RFPs
so that they would all expire together in 2012. In so doing it changed the franchise periods to
10-years for the reasons stated above. In 2008 ANAHEIM kept the same number of franchises
38
per franchisee, butthrew in another 25 franchise stickers to YELLOW CAB for good measure,
!
increasing the total number of outstanding permits from 230 to 255.
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
4
But CABCO filed a REQUEST FOR REHEARING pertaining in particular
2
to A TAXI’s award. The Request was granted and a Rehearing took place in August
3
2012, whereafter the franchise distribution among the three companies remained the same
4
- 155 to YELLOW CAB, 50 to CABCO, and 50 to A TAXI.
5
The Fourth Cause of Action of AGT’s First Amended Complaint in relevant
6
part challenged the propriety of the August 2012 Rehearing, and the Trial Court agreed
7
that it had been improperly done, by its MINUTE ORDER directing a “Rehearing” of
8
that Rehearing. But in the interim between the hearing on which the MINUTE ORDER
9
was made, and the time that it was issued, A TAXI went out of business.
:
ANAHEIM did another short-cut. Since A TAXI had surrendered its
21
franchise, under Anaheim Municipal Code (“AMC”) section 4.73.045.030(iii) ANAHEIM
22
was required to, but did not, conduct a full RFP for those same 50 permits. AGT cried
23
foul and moved the trial court for an order allowing it to supplement or augment the
24
record, and ultimately the trial court granted it leave to file a Supplemental Complaint.
25
AGT did so, adding this new challenge as its Seventh Cause of Action Writ. But the Trial
26
Court found against AGT on this Writ, and in the end, dismissed the action, entering
27
Judgment against AGT.
28
On Appeal, the COA expressly found that ANAHEIM’s conduct of a
29
Rehearing was unauthorized and unlawful (OPINION pages 16-19,) and that AGT was
2:
those
correct: ANAHEIM had to issue a new RFP “for 50 taxicab permits” (OPINION at
31
p. 26 (emph. added).) This brings the case posture, roughly, to current.
32
33
THEY SAY THAT HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF.
34
At least in a litigation context, nowhere is it more apparent than in this case, where
35
CABCO continued to “jump the gun” to use A TAXI’s franchises both BEFORE that was
36
authorized in 2016, and AFTER it WAS NO LONGER authorized, to do so in 2020. Ditto
37
for YELLOW CAB.Even today history repeats itself with ANAHEIM allowing CABCO
38
to sneak in through the back door, what it could not sneak in, through the front door.
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
5
AGT is informed and believes that in April and May 2016, when A TAXI went out of
2
business, both YELLOW CAB and CABCO, with the knowledge and perhaps the
3
cooperation of ANAHEIM, just “divvied up” A TAXI’s 50 permits, taking 25 each and
4
4
operating with them immediately. Then when in October 2016 ANAHEIM was directed
5
by the Trial Court to “re-hear” the August 2012 Rehearing, even though AGT had
6
submitted a fully-compliant and competitive RFP Application and its scoring increased in
7
comparison with all the other contenders (all of whose scores, decreased.) ANAHEIM
8
didn’t change a thing. Conveniently, it awarded CABCO and YELLOW CAB an
9
additional 25 permits each - splitting the number of A TAXI’s permits right down the
:
middle. This was a good thing for CABCO and YELLOW CAB, since it saved them the
21
hassle of having to “process” the return of the A TAXI permits they had already been
22
using since the Spring of that year!It was just business as usual. Nothing changed in
23
YELLOW CAB’s and CABCO’s operations between the Spring of 2016 and October of
24
2016, when the actual extra 25-permit “award” was made to each of them.
25
Fast-forward to October 31, 2019, the date of the COA’s OPINION,
26
ordering ANAHEIM to conduct a new RFP for those 50 A TAXI permits. Again, nothing
27
happened. It was business as usual for CABCO and YELLOW CAB: they continued to
28
operate with their regular number of franchise awards, plus half of the A TAXI 50
29
permits. Neither company gave them back, nor did ANAHEIM invalidate them. Any
2:
question about the need for ANAHEIM to comply with the OPINION in light of the
31
interim Appeal evaporated on February 14, 2020, the date that the REMITTITUR was
32
issued. At least a month passed between then and the Governor’s issuance of the Stay-
33
At-Home Administrative Orders in mid-March: still, ANAHEIM took no action
34
whatsoever to begin the process to take away CABCO’s and YELLOW CAB’s 50 A
35
TAXI permits, which CABCO and YELLOW CAB continued to use.
36
37
38
AGT’s attempts to be able to conduct “targeted, limited discovery,” such as the taking
5
of the Deposition of ANAHEIM “Staff” Manager Sandra Sagert, were disallowed by the Trial
Court, so AGT has not yet been able to prove this.
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
6
In fact, the only reason that YELLOW CAB stopped using A TAXI’s permits
2
in May 2020, was that it went out of business altogether.
3
To date, ANAHEIM has offered no evidence whatsoever that CABCO was
4
ever required to surrender its 25 A TAXI permits. As explained by KONSTANTINOS
5
th
RODITIS in his DECLARATION, he submitted a PRR to ANAHEIM on July 17
6
seeking such proof, for which (although a response was statutorily required within ten
7
days,) has not been forthcoming.
8
Possibly it is a situation in which CABCO didpay lip service to
9
“surrendering” its 25 A TAXI permits, but even if so, AGT has proof positive that
:
CABCO is now operating with many permits in excess of its 50 allotted ones:
21
photographs of many“CABCO” vehicles now picking up fares in ANAHEIM using
22
YELLOW CAB’s ANAHEIM permits (Please see the concurrently-submitted SAVVAS
23
RODITIS DECLARATION and its Exhibits.)
24
This is not a “no harm, no foul” situation. There is no way that this could
25
5
50
be lawful and appropriate. CABCO now has onlyan ANAHEIM franchise for
26
permits. It doesn’t get to “inherit” YELLOW CAB’s franchises when it went out of
27
business, since the franchises are non-transferable (AMC4.73.120.)Besides, the
28
franchises have to go out for public bid among all of the interested and qualified taxicab
29
companies - each of which gets to compete for them (AMC4.73.045.030(iii).) Besides
2:
(again,) these YELLOW CAB franchises are purportedly already the subject of
31
ANAHEIM’s latest RFP: the one for which it submitted its July 15, 2020 RFP.
32
The common factor here is that “\[A\]ll roads lead to Rome,” where the
33
“roads” represent the procedural vehicles ANAHEIM uses, and “Rome” represents the
34
destination of having the incumbent franchisees always come out on top with as many
35
franchises as they want, to the utter exclusion of AGT (and its predecessor.)
36
37
Per the RFP and franchise and their allowances for fluctuations in peak or low period
6
GENERAL FRANCHISE
usage, this number can increase or decrease by 15% (RFP page 5 -
38
REQUIREMENTS
.) Thus a 50-cab franchise can actually allow for up to 58 stickers.
!!
This regular “overage” is not what is being challenged here.
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
7
III. ANAHEIM’S MOST RECENT SHENANIGANS PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF
2
“ACTUAL BIAS” AS DESCRIBED IN THE OPINION, TO ALLOW THIS COURT
3
DISCRETION TO DIRECTLY AWARD AGT THE 50 PERMITS THAT ARE THE
4
SUBJECT OF THE ORDERED RFP.
5
This Court opined at the June 25, 2020 Hearing, words to the effect that it
6
was clear that the COA wanted AGT to be operating in ANAHEIM. The Court is also
7
appropriately wanting to comply with the letter and spirit of the Order of the OPINION.
8
With these most recent developments and evidence, the Court can do so by making an
9
immediate award of 50 taxicab franchises to AGT.
:
It is noteworthy that the COA in no way limited the sort of “bias” that AGT
21
could assert “in future proceedings” (OPINION at pg. 22) other than to say that it should
22
6
be “supported by concrete facts and not baseless allegations” Ibid. Here then are those
23
concrete facts: (1) ANAHEIM refused to implement the Order of the OPINION until
24
forced to do so by this Court, allowing both CABCO and YELLOW CAB to continue to
25
use the aggregate 50 franchises rather than terminating them; (2) When ANAHEIM
26
finally “complied” by issuing its July 15, 2020 RFP, it included provisions that
27
realistically emasculated any advantage that AGT could possibly have gained from it,
28
including proposing a total of 180 (rather than the COA-Ordered 50) franchise stickers;
29
foreshortening the term of the franchise; and applying no-longer tenable vehicle age
2:
limitations; (3) ANAHEIM still has failed to require CABCO to turn in its no-longer
31
authorized 25 franchises; (4) ANAHEIM now allows CABCO to use YELLOW CAB’s
32
33
Importantly, the COA’s rejection of AGT’s “bias” claim was extremely narrow. The
7
34
COA found that in order for AGT to have preserved its bias claim, it literally had to itself have
presented and argued specific detailed facts before the Anaheim City Council, proving that
35
particular City Councilpersons and/or members of the Taxicab Advisory Committee (“TAC”)
were biased against AGT (OPINION at pp. 19-22.)
36
Here, in contrast, AGT has established that even outside of a City Council hearing or TAC
37
proceeding, ANAHEIM’s continued refusal to act in a way that would comply with and further
the letter and spirit of the Order in the OPINION, instead delaying taking any action to comply
38
whatsoever, and then finding a way to twist and manipulate the situation so as to favor the
continued operation of CABCO (and to possibly assist any other taxicab operator that might
39
wish to operate in the City,) constitutes sufficient evidence of bias.
!!!
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
8
(supposedly terminated and surrendered) franchises in addition to CABCO’s own
2
franchise stickers; and (5) ANAHEIM allows CABCO to operate taxicabs (its own, and
3
former YELLOW CAB taxis) that do not even meet the model year limitations, and some
4
of which do not even bear current franchise stickers.
5
Case law supports findings of municipal impropriety. In a building permit
6
case,Ogo Assoc’s v. City of v. City of Torrance (1974), 37 Cal.App.3d at p. 834 the Court
7
found that it could override the City’s actions where “\[T\]he evidence is overwhelming
8
that the city council rezoned the Victor Precinct area becauseappellants planned to build
9
their project there” (emph. added.) Likewise in G & D Holland Construction Co. v. City
:
of Marysville (1970), 12 Cal.App.3d 989, an appellate court reversed a grant of summary
21
judgment where the city’s actions represented a discriminatory exercise of legislative
22
power...” (at p. 996.) In Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks (1994), 30 Cal.App.,4th 547, (a
23
procedurally similar case in that the plaintiff had pursued a municipal permit for close to
24
15 years,) bias was found in the fact that the city had broken its own laws. Here evidence
25
has been presented that ANAHEIM has broken its own laws too: in (per the OPINION)
26
failing to conduct the required RFP in 2016; in allowing both CABCO and YELLOW
27
CAB to continue to use the 50 A TAXI franchise permits even after the OPINION
28
became final; and now, in allowing CABCO to operate under YELLOW CAB’s
29
(supposedly terminated and surrendered) franchises, often using taxicabs that exceed the
2:
maximum model year limitation of the franchise.
31
Several subparts of C.C.P. section 128(a) give this Court plenary power to
32
grant the Orders requested in this Motion. In this Court’s TENTATIVE RULING for the
33
June 25, 2020 hearing that was the genesis of the within Motion, the Court noted that
34
ANAHEIM should submit a copy of its RFP and/or be ready to answer for why this had
35
not yet been accomplished. Further proceedings followed suit.
36
Subparts -(1), -(2), and -(3) of C.C.P.section 128(a) all grant this Court the
37
authority to “preserve and enforce order” both “in its immediate presence” and “in the
38
proceedings before it” (and others,) and to “provide for the orderly conduct of
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
9
proceedings before it...”. Perhaps most relevant now is subpart -(4), which grants this
2
Court power “\[T\]o compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, and to the
3
orders of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending therein” (emph.
4
added.) The final phrase of this statute can relate to the Justices at the COA in their
5
OPINION Order, to which ANAHEIM has notbeen obedient. In fact, its delays and
6
omissions have effectively thwarted the intention of the COA in its OPINION.
7
8
IV. THE COURT ALSO HAS THE DISCRETION TO MODIFY UNTENABLE
9
PROVISIONS OF THE NEWLY-ISSUED RFP TO MAKE COMPLIANCE WITH IT
:
FEASIBLE, IN ORDER TO COMPORT WITH THE INTENT OF THE COA OPINION.
21
The July 15, 2020 RFP no longer “works” for the reasons stated throughout
22
this Motion. First and foremost, it is unnecessary: due to ANAHEIM’s blatant display of
23
bias in these proceedings, the 50 franchise award should go directly to AGT without a
24
competitive bidding process. And even if this Court finds that an RFP is still necessary,
25
ONLY
in order to comply with the Order in the OPINION it must be for 50 A TAXI
26
permits traceable back to the 2012 franchise awards.
27
Next, the proposed two-year franchise period should be extended to the
28
usual and customary ten-year period. Nothing that ANAHEIM can say can justify such a
29
short franchise period. AGT predicts that ANAHEIM will argue that the term should be
2:
limited to the remainder of the originalfranchise granted in 2012, but the OPINION said
31
no such thing. Such a limitation would also force an untenable result and be
32
fundamentally unfair to AGT. There have been relevant important things that have
33
changed since ANAHEIM’s last taxicab RFP (back in 2012) on both a State and local
34
level. TNCs began operating in Anaheim in direct competition to taxicabs. Next, Cal.
35
Govt. Code sections 53075.51 et seq.were enacted as a codification of AB 1069,
36
throwing ANAHEIM’s very ability to continue operations under its taxi franchise system
37
into question. Just a few months back, the COVID-19 pandemic hit, throwing almost all
38
regular business endeavors (including local taxicab business) into disarray and
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
:
uncertainty. And most recently of all, YELLOW CAB went out of business, “throwing”
2
its (legitimate) 155 franchise stickers back into the marketplace.
3
In addition to C.C.P.section 128, this Court is also graced with discretion
4
to “amend the proceedings” under C.C.P. section 473(a)(1). That statute provides in
5
salient part that “The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse
6
party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any...proceeding...”. The
7
amendment proposed in this Motion - to wit, to amend the 5-year vehicle model-year
8
limitation to 10-years in order to comply with AB 1069 and the universal Orange County
9
OCTAP requirements, is necessary and appropriate in order for the franchise to even be
:
tenable under the present conditions.
21
22
V. CONCLUSION.
23
Based upon all of the foregoing, on the concurrently-submitted
24
DECLARATIONS, and such other documents as may be presented upon RJN, in addition
25
to the oral arguments of counsel, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant this
26
Motion in its entirety, Ordering ANAHEIM to award AGT the subject 50 taxicab
27
28 franchises forthwith for a ten-year period, and that this Court modify the proposed
29
Vehicle Requirements (as stated in Section 2 (at page 7) of ANAHEIM’s related RFP) so
2:
as to allow AGT to comply with AB 1069 and OCTAP Vehicle Requirements standards;)
31
or that this Court otherwise modify the RFP award for AGT to make compliance with it
32
feasible; or that this Court grant such other or further relief as it deems just and proper.
33
34
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
CAZZELL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS
35
/S/ Maryann Cazzell
36
DATED: July 28, 2020 By:_________________________________
37
MARYANN CAZZELL, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff AMERICAN
38
GROUND TRANSPORTATION, INC.
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
21
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
4
I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the
age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 505 N. Tustin Ave.,
5
Ste. 276, Santa Ana, California 92705.
6
On July 29, 2020 I caused the foregoing document(s) described as:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PLAINTIFF AMERICAN GROUND
7
TRANSPORTATION, INC. FOR AN IMMEDIATE AWARD OF FIFTY TAXICAB
FRANCHISES UPON SHOWING OF ACTUAL BIAS ON THE PART OF ANAHEIM,
8
PURSUANT TO OCTOBER 31, 2019 COURT OF APPEAL OPINION IN CASE
AND
#G055501; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF;
9
DECLARATION OF SAVVAS RODITIS (submitted and served separately and
concurrently); and DECLARATION OF KONSTANTINOS RODITIS (submitted and
:
served separately and concurrently) to be served on the interested party in this action as
follows:
21
XX
by causing a true and correct copy of the same to be personally delivered to the
22
office of the following recipient:
23
MOSES W. JOHNSON, IV, ESQ. (Attorney for Defendant and Responding Party
24
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM)
CITY OF ANAHEIM
25
200 W. Anaheim Blvd., Ste. 356
Anaheim, CA 92805
26
mjohnson@anaheim.net
27
AND -
28
_XX_ By serving the counsel identified hereinbelow electronically through service
effected by ONE LEGAL at the electronic mail address on file with this Court,
29
concurrently with the filing of the above document, with confirmation of electronic
service; AND ALSO directly sending a copy thereof via email to the email address
2:
below, this date:
31
32
Executed on July 29, 2020 at Santa Ana, California.
33
xx
(State)I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California that the above is true and correct.
34
35
/S/ Maryann Cazzell
36
_______________________________________
37
MARYANN CAZZELL
38
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
22
Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 08/13/2020 06:27:00 PM.
30-2013-00688977-CU-MC-CJC - ROA # 445 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By e Clerk, Deputy Clerk.
CAZZELL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS
2
MARYANN CAZZELL, ESQ.
(Bar #128780)
505 N. Tustin Ave., Ste. 276
3
Santa Ana, California 92705
Telephone: 714/558-1772
4
Telefax: 714/558-1883
cazzell@msn.com
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Moving party AMERICAN
6
GROUND TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California Corporation,
doing business as 24/7 Taxi Cab
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIAFOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT CENTER, UNLIMITED
:
21
AMERICAN GROUND TRANSPORTATION,)CASE NO.: 30-2013-00688977-CU-
22
INC., A California Corporation, doing business)MC-CJC
as 24/7 Taxi Cab, )\[REASSIGNED FOR ALL
23
)PURPOSES TO THE HON.
)GLENN R. SALTER, DEPT. C-22\]
24
Plaintiff,)
)MEMORANDUM OF PLAINTIFF
25
)AMERICAN GROUND
vs.)TRANSPORTATION, INC. IN
26
REPLY
)TO OPPOSITION TO
)MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE
27
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, DOES 1)AWARD OF FIFTY TAXICAB
THROUGH 100,)FRANCHISES UPON SHOWING
28
)OF ACTUAL BIAS ON THE
Defendants.)PART OF ANAHEIM,
29
)PURSUANT TO OCTOBER 31,
)2019 COURT OF APPEAL
2:
)OPINION IN CASE #G055501
)
31
)\[DECLARATIONS OF SAVVAS
)RODITIS, KONSTANTINOS
32
)RODITIS, AND MARYANN
)CAZZELL; REQUEST FOR
33
)JUDICIAL NOTICE; AND
)OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
34
)SUBMITTED SEPARATELY
)AND CONCURRENTLY\]
35
)
)HEARING DATE: 8/20/2020
36
)TIME: 9:30 a.m.
)DEPT.: C-22
37
)REMITTITUR ISSUANCE DATE:
)2/14/2020
38
)COMPLT. FIL’G DATE: 11/21/13
_______________________________________)TRIAL DATE: NONE
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, TO DEFENDANT/RESPONDING PARTY
2
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (“ANAHEIM”) AND TO MOSES W. JOHNSON, IV.,
3
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD HEREIN, AND TO
4
ALL OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL:
5
6
COMES NOT PLAINTIFF/MOVING PARTY AMERICAN GROUND
7
TRANSPORTATION, INC. (hereinafter “AGT”) and does herewith submit the following
8
REPLY to ANAHEIM’s OPPOSITION to AGT’s MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE
9
AWARD OF FIFTY TAXICAB FRANCHISES UPON SHOWING OF ACTUAL BIAS
:
ON THE PART OF ANAHEIM, PURSUANT TO OCTOBER 31, 2019 COURT OF
21
APPEAL OPINION IN CASE #G055501 and/or related relief, currently set to be heard
22
on August 20, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. (By Court Call Appearance) in Dept. C-22 of the above-
23
captioned Court.
24
25
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
26
CAZZELL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS
27
28
/S/ Maryann Cazzell
DATED: August 14, 2020
29
By:_________________________________
MARYANN CAZZELL, ESQ.
2:
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Moving Party
AMERICAN GROUND
31
TRANSPORTATION, INC.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
jj
MEMORANDUM
2
1. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT:
3
ANAHEIM’s OPPOSITION says many things, butitdoes not say:
4
1) THAT it cannot perform the relief sought in the Motion; and
5
2) WHY it should not perform the relief sought in the Motion.
6
Instead, in flagrant disregard for both this Court and the Court of Appeal
7
(“COA”) and their processes, ANAHEIM “doubles-down” on its insistence that it has its
8
franchise ordinance (Anaheim Municipal Code (“AMC”) Chapter 4.73) and that its timing
9
and procedures take precedence;that it has discretion with which no one, including any
:
Court, should interfere; and that as to compliance with the COA’s October 31, 2019
21
ORDER, well, it will “get around to it when it gets around to it,” and oh, by the way, it
22
can interpret its duty of compliance however it deems appropriate and convenient for it.
23
When confronted by the MOTION’s solid evidence that just last month, in
24
July 2020, CABCO (the last Anaheim taxicab franchisee now standing,) has been using
25
the Anaheim Franchise stickers still affixed to defunct franchisee YELLOW CAB’s
26
taxicabs, to pick up Anaheim taxi fares, ANAHEIM feigns ignorance rather than taking
27
action to terminate CABCO’s franchise (although it has in the past taken immediate
28
1
Rather than
action to terminate another company’s franchise for far lesser offenses.)
29
prosecuting CABCO for a misdemeanor under AMC4.73.170 for operating cabs in its
2:
City without a franchise, ANAHEIM has embraced this illegal activity. Rather than
31
requiring YELLOW CAB / CABCO to surrender the cabs bearing forfeited Anaheim
32
franchise stickers to be literally scraped off (as ANAHEIM did for SCC’s Court-Ordered
33
permits (SAVVAS RODITIS (“SAVVAS”) DECLARATION, paras. 3&4,) it capitulated
34
in a clandestine transfer of those cabs complete with franchise stickers to CABCO.
35
Throughout these proceedings on remand (and likely beforehand,) the
36
favoritism that ANAHEIM has shown to CABCO defies belief. When confronted with
37
38
See CAZZELL DECLARATION, paras. 4-6 and Exhibits “A” & “B” thereof, and
2
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (“RJN”) Exhibit “A” (referring to “A TAXI.”)
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
2
clear written evidence that CABCO is operating franchised cabs in the City that grossly
2
exceed the allowable vehicle model year limitation, ANAHEIM argues a tortured
3
interpretation of that limitation to try to shoehorn CABCO’s acts into the “OK zone,” a
4
construct that is any case overcome by the written requirements of ANAHEIM’s own
5
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (“RFP”) ADDENDUM (from 2012) which detailed the
6
the KONSTANTINOS RODITIS
calculation of the latest model year acceptable (see
7
(“KONSTANTINOS”) DECLARATION, paras.4-6 and its EXHIBIT “A”, at p.2, Sec. 8.)
8
Although ANAHEIM admits that the COA ORDERED it to issue an RFP
9
for “those fifty permits,”) (OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM (“OPPO,”) page 1 lines 2-4
:
(p.1:2-4),) it persists to insist that this Court “bless” its substitute initiation of an RFP for
21
205
permits, also claiming that there is no need for its traditional expert taxicab study on
22
paras. 8&9 of the SAGERT DECLARATION,)
how many cabs are needed now(see
23
using only objectionable “evidence” to do so (addressed, a time permits, in the
24
concurrently -submitted OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE.) Indeed, there is something
25
inherently wrong in the fact that almost all of the factual evidence submitted in the
26
opposition paperwork came from SAGERT, the witness whom AGT’s repeated attempts
27
to depose were rejected by both the Trial Court and the COA in response to ANAHEIM’s
28
strenuous objections.) There is even more than inherently wrong in SAGERT’s statement
29
on
at page 2 lines 27-28 of her DECLARATION made under penalty of perjury, that: “...-
2:
July 15, 2020, the City issued an RFP for the 50 permits to abide by the Court’s order
31
.
and while preparing the RFP another company went out of business
..” (emph. added.)
32
WHAT?
YELLOW CAB went out of business on May 31, 2020, as ANAHEIM is well
33
aware. The parties and this Court are also well-aware that ANAHEIM, by its counsels;s
34
own admission in “Open Court,” did not even start working on the RFP until JULY 2020!
35
SAGERT’s statement is a blatant falsehood, which casts complete doubt on her veracity.
36
What is clear is that ANAHEIM will fight AGT’s MOTION at all costs,
37
because once AGT, after twelve years of attempts, is able to operate in the City, it will do
38
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
3
an excellent job, andANAHEIM fears that AGT will then (legitimately) seek an award of
2
damages and fees for prevailing on its Writ claims, twice.But there is no need for the
3
litigants to get ahead of themselves: the case will progress; and the chips “will fall..”
4
It is far more important not cater to ANAHEIM’s desperate attempt to avoid
5
the justified relief now sought, just because it has painted itself into the proverbial corner.
6
ANAHEIM’s track record has proven that it will neverwillingly grant AGT a franchise;
7
and it has gone through great efforts to perpetuate that goal. First, it put off doing
8
anything to comply with the COA ORDER, all the while allowing CABCO to take over
9
the YELLOW CAB taxicabs AND their franchises in violation of AMC4.73.120
:
prohibiting franchise alienation (in particular franchise transfers.) Next ANAHEIM
21
delayed the issuance of the RFP until this Court mandated it. Then ANAHEIM “mixed”
22
the 50-franchise RFP required by the COA with, and rolled it into, a re-issuance of a total
23
of 205 franchises. These tactics are perhaps not surprising given that ANAHEIM is
24
completely disincentivized to conduct a “fair” RFP for “those 50 permits” as ORDERED
25
by the COA; because, what if AGT should win? Then ANAHEIM will then have to
26
answer in damages and fees. Better to have a larger RFP, where ANAHEIM can more
27
easily manipulate things and possibly even dodge the radar in so doing. If ANAHEIM has
28
proven anything, it is its desire to litigate against AGT (paying for it with taxpayer
29
money,) “until the cows come home.” This Court has discretion to short-circuit that ill-
2:
chosen path by granting the relief sought in AGT’s MOTION.
31
2. ANAHEIM HAS OFFERED NO EVIDENCE, NOR REASONABLE ARGUMENT, FOR
32
WHY THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE MOTION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED (OTHER
33
THAN THAT IT DOESN’T HAVE TO DO WHAT THE COURT SAYS IT MUST DO.)
34
AGT expected argument in the OPPO for why this Court did not have the
35
authority or discretion to grant AGT’s Motion, but found none.
36
Instead, ANAHEIM actually floated this argument at OPPO, p.5:24-25:
37
“It should be noted that theAppellate Court did not order
38
when
the City was required to issue the RFP”
(emph. added.)
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
4
The argument which followed pointed out that “\[T\]he first Status
2
Conference was held on June 25, 2020” (OPPO p.6:2.) In other words, ANAHEIM didn’t
3
have to actually do anything until AFTER this Court told it to.
4
III
ANAHEIM then segued into its Section , pertaining to its REQUEST
5
FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE of AMCChapter 4.73 (the taxicab franchise Chapter) (OPPO
6
pp.6:3-7:4.) In other words, this is the “law” that ANAHEIM made, and this is what it
7
will follow regardless of what any Court should order. Not to put too fine a point on it,
8
ANAHEIM sealed this argument by explaining that this Court had no business meddling
9
in its administration, citing to the cases of Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Dep’t of
:
Conservation(2018), 26 Cal.App.5th 161 and State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers’ Comp.
21
Appeals Bd. (2016), 248 Cal.App.4th 349 for why ANAHEIM could not be compelledto
22
exercise its discretion in any “particular manner;” and that the Court could not “mandate”
23
2
the “award of a contract,” since a public entity’s award of it is “legislative in nature”
24
th
(citing to Mike Moore’s 24-Hour Towing v. City of San Diego (1996), 45 Cal.App.4
25
1294,) such that “...\[T\]he Plaintiff is not entitled to a court order mandating that the City
26
immediately grant them a taxicab franchise” (OPPO. p.7:27-8:11.) That’s it. AGT’s tenet
27
thatC.C.P.section 128(a)(1), -(2), -(3), and -(4) all grant this Court the authority and
28
discretion to grant the relief sought by the MOTION, stands unchallenged.
29
3. ANAHEIM’S ONGOING DELAYS IN IMPLEMENTING THE COA’S ORDER
2:
CONTINUE TO WORK TO AGT’S SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE IN THE FORM OF
31
LOST INCOME AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY.
32
Were this a taxicab franchise of ANAHEIM’s standard ten-year term, the
33
resulting damage from the delay in implementation would be relatively small (as a
34
percentage of time compared to the total franchise period.) But ANAHEIM has refused to
35
issue the COA-Ordered 50 sticker franchise for ten years: thus, the inclusion of the request
36
to increase the franchise period to ten years among the relief requested in the MOTION.
37
38
Regardless, the “franchise” is not a “contract.”
39
3
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
5
AGT has “done the math” to see how ANAHEIM’s ongoing delays have
2
worked to its substantial prejudice, and the results are significant. ANAHEIM’s planned
3
franchise will only be effective through 5/15/2022. Assuming that there are no delays in
4
ANAHEIM’s planned award process outlined in its RFP, it will commence on 9/29/2020,
5
allowing a total of only 593 operating days. The following time/percentage calculations
6
were made by using the 76-day spread that ANAHEIM used in its own RFP, between the
7
time when the RFP was first issued, and the franchises are actually awarded: If
8
ANAHEIM had issued the RFP on 2/15/2020, the day following the 2/14/2020
9
REMITTITUR, AGT could have operated for 745 days. Thus ANAHEIM’s delays
:
3
deprived AGT of about twenty percent (20%) of its profits and economic advantage.
21
ANAHEIM’s argument that the franchise should only be issued for the
22
remaining period from now until the completion of the originally-issued 2012 franchise,
23
“doesn’t work” for the COA’s ORDER. At no point in its OPINION did the COA limit its
24
Ordered-RFP issuance to less than two years. Nor would it make sense for the COA to
25
have done this, since it obviously did not intend to make a ruling that would eviscerate
26
AGT’s success. It might be appropriate to limit any upcoming separate RFP for
27
YELLOW CAB’s own surrendered permits, to that less than two-year period, however, for
28
CABCO, which has enjoyed the benefits of the franchise continuously since 2012 .
29
4. THE OPPOSITION ONLY SHOWCASES MORE BIAS IN ANAHEIM’S FLIPPANT
2:
APPROACH TO REGULATING CABCO’S FRANCHISE OPERATIONS (OR NOT,)
31
ESPECIALLY AS COMPARED TO ITS TREATMENT OF OTHER OPERATORS.
32
(A)Improper “counting” of acceptable model-year taxicabs:
33
In response to the moving DECLARATIONS OF SAVVAS and
34
KONSTANTINOS, ANAHEIM, through Declarant SAGERT, argues that CABCO cabs
35
36
37
An argument can be made that ANAHEIM should have issued the RFP on 11/1/2019,
4
the day after the COA OPINION was filed, since ANAHEIM never appealed the decision. If the
38
RFP had been issued then, the franchise would have taken effect on 1/15/2020 and would have
allowed 866 operation days. Under this calculation ANAHEIM’s delay deprived AGT of up to
thirty-two percent (32%) of its time, profit, and economic advantage.
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
6
as old as 2014 meet the franchise’s five-year age limitation! (SAGERT DECLARATION
2
paras. 12, 20, 21.) To reach this erroneous conclusion, SAGERT applies the old mistake
3
in arithmetic that to figure out how many copies are made, one can subtract the number of
4
pages printed from the total: as in, if you have a 2020-page-long document and you print
5
WRONG
pages 2015 through 2020, you’ve printed 5 pages (2020 - 2015.): you’ve
6
6
printed pages (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, & 2020.) So, even excluding the 2020
7
model year (a typical and in fact legal method of calculation for the “last day to perform an
8
act” per C.C.P. section 12c(a), - one excludes the last date (2020) and counts back the
9
2015
specified number -) the oldest year standard cab now allowed, is (subject to the very
:
.)
limited exception in the following paragraph
21
An ADDENDUM to the existing franchise does add an allowance, but it is
22
st
of only three months (from January 1 - April 1 of each year.) This is described in detail
23
in the KONSTANTINOS DECLARATION at paras. 5&6 and in EXHIBIT “A” thereto -
24
the RFP ADDENDUM. Perhaps SAGERT had this in mind when she boldly claimed that
25
2014 cabs were franchise-legal; but she didn’t review her own paperwork.Such 2014
26
franchise cabs ceased to be legal on April 2, 2020 - four and a half months ago.To make
27
matters worse, SAGERT claimed that all 2014 franchise cabs were valid all the way
28
2013
through the end of ! (SAGERT DECLARATION paras.12, 20, & 21.) But 2015 is
29
absolutely cut-off now, and the analysis set forth in para. 7 of the KONSTANTINOS
2:
DECLARATION concluded that the 2020 Roster of CABCO vehicles ANAHEIM
31
53
supplied, showed that CABCO had 2014 and older cabs. Also reprehensible is
32
ANAHEIM’s lack of enforcement of CABCO’s repeated violations of the franchise laws
33
(even after called them to its attention!) SAGERT admits to CABCO’s violations, but
34
instead of doing anything about it says things in her DECLARATION such as, CABCO’s
35
taxi was “\[E\]xpired and working with Cabco on replacing taxi,” (para. 12;) “Staff is
36
following up with Cabco ... regarding the removal of those taxi franchise stickers” (para.
37
13;) “...staff is following up...” (paras. 14, 15, 16, 17 & 18.) In other words, “CABCO,
38
you shouldn’t be doing that.” (Nudge Nudge, Wink Wink.)
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
7
(B)Improper failure to take action to terminate CABCO’s franchise due to its flagrant
2
disregard for the requirements.
3
ANAHEIM also argues that it was “...unaware that those taxis
4
were being operated by CABCO” (SAGERT DECLARATION para.12;) and that from
5
many of the photos presented with the moving paperwork there was no evidence that a fare
6
was being picked up and one cannot tell “who was driving the vehicle;...” Loc. Cit., paras.
7
14-18. As to “who was driving the vehicle,” the photos are self-authenticating in that they
8
depict CABCO’s trade dress on the doors, as in “Operated by California Yellow Cab” (see
9
the SAVVAS DECLARATION supporting the Motion.) As to the argument about the
:
vehicle perhaps not “picking up” a fare in Anaheim (even if true,) that misses the point:
21
YELLOW CAB was out of business. Its ANAHEIM franchise was gone. There vehicles
22
still bore the franchise stickers. ANAHEIM should have, but did not, require YELLOW
23
CAB and CABCO to have them scraped off, the way it required SCC to immediately have
24
its permits scraped off when its operating rights were terminated. End of story.
25
ANAHEIM doesn’t practice what it preaches. At p.9 of its OPPO it touts
26
its “police powers” to regulate its taxi business under O’Connor v. Sup. Ct. (1979) 90
27
Cal.App.3d 107, but then does no regulation of CABCO. It could (and should) have
28
pursued enforcement and termination actions against CABCO as authorized under AMC
29
4.73.030.010, -.100, .170, -.200, as it did against A TAXI (see argument infra.) Instead,
2:
more of ANAHEIM’s pro-CABCO bias is evident in the sympathetic tone that SAGERT
31
used in the letter she sent about terminating its (A TAXI’s) 25 franchises, starting with “It
32
is with regret, that we inform you...” (p.2 of SAGERT Exhibit “C.”) Why should
33
ANAHEIM “regret” anything in informing CABCO that the jig was up; that the COA had
34
seen through the improprieties of CABCO getting those 25 permits in the first place?
35
(C) ANAHEIM’s grossly disparate treatment of its taxicab franchisees:
36
THE A TAXI STUDY.
37
If the above sub-sections seem to treat CABCO’s failure to comply with the
38
franchise harshly (after all, maybe it was all just a mistake,) the Court need look no further
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
8
than what happened with the “third” franchisee, A WHITE AND YELLOW CAB, INC,
2
dba “A TAXI” to find evidence of the intentionalityof ANAHEIM’s acts and omissions
3
resulting in disparate treatment. After all, A TAXI’s 50 franchise permits, (re-) awarded in
4
May 2012, and eventually (re-)issued after the REQUEST FOR REHEARING submitted
5
by CABCO in June 2012, lead to the August 2012 ANAHEIM “Rehearing” at issue in
6
AGT’s Fourth and Seventh Cause of Action in the Trial Court in this case.These are the
7
same ill-fated 50 permits that are still being fought over today.
8
The “Powers-That-Be” at ANAHEIM didn’t want A TAXI to get that 50
9
permit award; or at least, once they were awarded, ANAHEIM did everything it could to
:
take them back from A TAXI. As all of the parties and counsel to this action are aware,
21
AGT’s counsel knows these facts intimately because she and her firm represented A TAXI
22
4
from 2012 through 2016 throughout these proceedings. These facts are attested to in
23
detail in the accompanying CAZZELL DECLARATION, supported by evidence attached
24
to thereto, and/or in the concurrent RJN.
25
(i) ANAHEIM’S attempts to kick A TAXI out through the ploy of
26
CABCO’s Request for a Rehearing:
27
As also explained by CAZZELL, the same SAGERT who informed
28
CABCO “with regret” that the 25 permits it had stolen from AGT in the first place had to
29
be returned, had no qualms whatsoever in taking A TAXI’s 50 permits away from it
2:
simply because CABCO had filed a (deficient and untimely) REQUEST FOR
31
REHEARING; and under SAGERT’s rigid interpretation of AMC1.12.100.090, A TAXI’s
32
completely voided
new award was “” and A TAXI was out on its ear. And, less than a
33
week later, this same SAGERT refused to agree to a voluntary stay of the enforcement of
34
her edict so that A TAXI could have a fair shake to challenge it in Court. This caused in A
35
36
Due to the specialization needed to practice in this area of law, and the somewhat
37
5
incestuous nature of the taxi industry, there is some overlap of representation. All of this was
done with full knowledge on the parts of all clients, and with written disclosures and waivers.
38
Counsel has at other times represented A TAXI on other matters. During the pendency of this
case from 2012 to 2016, AGT was represented by Attorney WILLIAM KENNON.
39
!!!
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
9
TAXI to have to rush to file an action and run into Court for a Temporary Restraining
2
Order to restrain such activity; which, fortuitously, was granted.
3
(ii) ANAHEIM’S Administrative Trial Against A TAXI:
4
The CAZZELL DECLARATION also explains that beginning in or about
5
early 2013 ANAHEIM took administrative action against A TAXI to terminate its
6
(August) 2012 franchise on the grounds that it had not submitted the three years’ worth of
7
audited financial statements required by the RFP. A TAXI was forced to defend itself
8
through a protracted public administrative trial which took place in ANAHEIM’s Council
9
Chambers before the Hon. ALAN BURNS, HEARING OFFICER (appointed pursuant to
:
AMC4.73.100.040 and by Stipulation of the Parties.)
21
The September 18, 2013 DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER (later
22
adopted by the ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL pursuant to AMC4.73.100.050,) is attached
23
as EXHIBIT “B” to CAZZELL’s DECLARATION and also referenced in the RJN. A
24
TAXI was charged with not having properly submitting its audited financial statements (as
25
they had previously been submitted “combined” as a group and were not actually audited,
26
but they later had been broken down and prepared separately, and audited per
27
ANAHEIM’S demand.) After all was said and done, the Hearing Officer concluded that
28
ANAHEIM had failed to carry its burden to proof on every single one of the issues (at p.
29
14.) In so doing, the Hearing Officer also found that competitor YELLOW CAB had not
2:
even submitted GAAP-compliant audits, and had submitted less than the three requisite
31
years’ worth of financials (Findings 66 & 67 at p. 8.)
32
(D)ANAHEIM’s grossly-disparate treatment of its taxicab franchisees:
33
THE SCC STUDY:
34
As explained in paras. 4&5 of the SAVVAS DECLARATION, and briefly
35
hereinabove, when ANAHEIM “sunsetted” the 117 Court-ordered permits awarded to
36
AGT’s predecessor, ANAHEIM required SCC to bring each of its Anaheim-stickered cabs
37
to its City Officers where, one by one, Code Enforcement literally scrapedthose stickers
38
off. In stark contrast, ANAHEIM never required either YELLOW CAB or CABCO to
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
:
have their invalidated stickers removed in any way, so that it is not apparent which cars
2
are licensed to operate in ANAHEIM, and which are not (with the result that the
3
disenfranchised cabs can and have continued to be operated in ANAHEIM with impunity.)
4
5. CONCLUSION: THE MULTIPLE, UNDISPUTED EXAMPLES OF ANAHEIM’S
5
SYSTEMIC BIAS IN ITS ACTIONS AGAINST AGT (AND ITS PREDECESSOR SCC, AND
6
OTHER TAXI COMPANIES THAT ANAHEIM DIDN’T LIKE,) SUBSTANTIALLY
7
CERTAIN TO CONTINUE IF LEFT UNCHECKED, JUSTIFY THIS COURT IN ITS
8
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION TO GRANT THE IMMEDIATE RELIEF REQUESTED.
9
In its OPINION the COA specifically left open to AGT, the ability to assert
:
“bias in future proceedings, supported by concrete facts...” (2019 WL 5617590, at *12.)
21
This is the sort of future proceeding included in the COA’s contemplation.
22
th
and July 16th this Court specifically asked
In both its hearings on June 25
23
AGT’s counsel what relief it was requesting vis-a-visthe COA’s Order. AGT responded
24
that it would like to begin operating its taxicabs in the City immediately. This Court
25
responded that while it was not comfortable allowing that without ANAHEIM’s approval
26
(which was not given,) the Court would consider granting relief based upon a Motion for
27
which ANAHEIM had the opportunity to respond in writing.This is that.AGT has based
28
its Motion on concrete facts and evidence of bias and wrongdoing on ANAHEIM’s part.
29
ANAHEIM hasn’t been able to refute this through credible, non-objectionable evidence.
2:
Based upon all of the foregoing and on all of the other evidence submitted
31
in support of the Motion, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant this Motion in its
32
entirety, or that this Court otherwise modify the RFP award for AGT to make compliance
33
with it feasible; or that this Court grant such other or further relief as it deems appropriate
34
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
35
CAZZELL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS
36
/S/ Maryann Cazzell
37
DATED: August 14, 2020
By:_________________________________
38
MARYANN CAZZELL, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff AMERICAN
39
GROUND TRANSPORTATION, INC.
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
21
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
4
I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the
age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 505 N. Tustin Ave.,
5
Ste. 276, Santa Ana, California 92705.
6
On August 14, 2020 I caused the foregoing document(s) described as:
MEMORANDUM OF PLAINTIFF AMERICAN GROUND TRANSPORTATION, INC.
7
REPLY
INTO OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF FOR AN IMMEDIATE AWARD OF
FIFTY TAXICAB FRANCHISES UPON SHOWING OF ACTUAL BIAS ON THE
8
PART OF ANAHEIM, PURSUANT TO OCTOBER 31, 2019 COURT OF APPEAL
AND
OPINION IN CASE #G055501
DECLARATIONS OF SAVVAS RODITIS,
9
KONSTANTINOS RODITIS, AND MARYANN CAZZELL, REQUEST FOR
:
JUDICIAL NOTICE, AND OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE, SUBMITTED
SEPARATELY AND CONCURRENTLY to be served on the interested party in this
21
action as follows:
22
XX
by causing a true and correct copy of the same to be sent via UNITED PARCEL
SERVICE (“UPS,”) NEXT BUSINESS DAY DELIVERY, by enclosing said documents
23
in a specialized UPS OVERNIGHT LETTER PAK, with delivery charges billed to the
“SENDER,”and depositing the same in an UPS Mailing Receptacle, this date, prior to the
24
time marked on the receptacle as the “LAST PICK-UP” of the day, addressed as follows:
25
MOSES W. JOHNSON, IV, ESQ. (Attorney for Defendant and Responding Party
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM)
26
CITY OF ANAHEIM
200 W. Anaheim Blvd., Ste. 356
27
Anaheim, CA 92805
mjohnson@anaheim.net
28
AND -
29
_XX_ By serving the counsel identified hereinbelow electronically through service
2:
effected by ONE LEGAL at the electronic mail address on file with this Court,
31
concurrently with the filing of the above document, with confirmation of electronic
service, this date:
32
33
Executed on August 14, 2020 at Santa Ana, California.
34
xx
(State)I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California that the above is true and correct.
35
36
/S/ Maryann Cazzell
37
_______________________________________
MARYANN CAZZELL
38
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 07/29/2020 04:01:00 PM.
30-2013-00688977-CU-MC-CJC - ROA # 437 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By Jonathan Aguilar, Deputy Clerk.
CAZZELL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS
2
MARYANN CAZZELL, ESQ.
(Bar #128780)
505 N. Tustin Ave., Ste. 276
3
Santa Ana, California 92705
Telephone: 714/558-1772
4
Telefax: 714/558-1883
cazzell@msn.com
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Moving party AMERICAN
6
GROUND TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California Corporation,
doing business as 24/7 Taxi Cab
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIAFOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT CENTER, UNLIMITED
:
21
AMERICAN GROUND TRANSPORTATION,)CASE NO.: 30-2013-00688977-CU-
22
INC., A California Corporation, doing business)MC-CJC
as 24/7 Taxi Cab, )\[REASSIGNED FOR ALL
23
)PURPOSES TO THE HON.
)GLENN R. SALTER, DEPT. C-22\]
24
Plaintiff,)
)DECLARATION OF SAVVAS
25
)RODITIS IN SUPPORT OF
vs.)MOTION OF PLAINTIFF
26
)AMERICAN GROUND
)TRANSPORTATION, INC. FOR
27
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, DOES 1)AN IMMEDIATE AWARD OF
THROUGH 100,)FIFTY TAXICAB FRANCHISES
28
)UPON SHOWING OF ACTUAL
Defendants.)BIAS ON THE PART OF
29
)ANAHEIM, PURSUANT TO
)OCTOBER 31, 2019 COURT OF
2:
)APPEAL OPINION IN CASE
)#G055501
31
)\[NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION
)AND DECLARATION OF
32
)KONSTANTINOS RODITIS
)SUBMITTED SEPARATELY
33
)AND CONCURRENTLY\]
)
34
)HEARING DATE: 8/20/2020
)TIME: 9:30 a.m.
35
)DEPT.: C-22
\[RESERVATION # 73345479\]
)
36
)
)
37
)REMITTITUR ISSUANCE DATE:
)2/14/2020
38
)COMPLT. FIL’G DATE: 11/21/13
_______________________________________)TRIAL DATE: NONE
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM DECL RE: MOTION FOR FRANCHISE AWARD
DECLARATION OF SAVVAS RODITIS
2
I, SAVVAS RODITIS, declare:
3
1. I am an individual, and the father of KONSTANTINOS RODITIS,
4
principal of Plaintiff AMERICAN GROUND TRANSPORTATION, INC. (“AGT”) in
5
this action. From approximately 1991 to 2005 I was a principal of SCC (and in the earlier
6
years, its predecessor,) which during those times was authorized to operate taxicabs
7
generally in most (later in all) of the cities and unincorporated areas of Orange County;
8
and between the years 2001 to 2005, in the City of Anaheim (“Anaheim”) as well.
9
Thereafter I sometimes operated a taxicab in Orange County. Because of this experience
:
21
I am familiar with the Orange County taxicab industry and the licensing and operational
22
requirements. I make this Declaration in support of AGT’s Motion to allow it to
23
immediately be allowed to operate with fifty (50) Anaheim taxicab franchises and for
24
alternative and related relief. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated below and
25
could testify to them in Court.
26
2. On July 17, 2020 I used my cell phone to take a total of five photographs
27
that, among them, depicted two separate taxicabs that were then operating in Anaheim.
28
These taxicabs appear at first to belong to YELLOW CAB, the company that has held the
29
vast majority of the Anaheim taxicab franchises all along. The cabs bear the words
2:
“YELLOW CAB” in many places, and also display YELLOW CAB’s phone number of
31
(714) 999-9999, but the Court is already aware that YELLOW CAB is no longer
32
operating at all since May 31, 2020, and that ANAHEIM revoked YELLOW CAB’s
33
operating authority altogether on July 14, 2020. Upon closer examination the cabs are
34
being operated by CABCO, which are using YELLOW CAB’s Anaheim franchises: this
35
is apparent because on the side of each vehicle, underneath the inverted triangle that
36
contains the words “YELLOW CAB CO.,” are the words “Operated by: California
37
Yellow Cab” (CABCO.) Each vehicle that has an Anaheim franchise has the franchise
38
logo on it in the form of an “A” sticker affixed to both the right and left front quarter-
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM DECL RE: MOTION FOR FRANCHISE AWARD
3
panels, and the current sticker consists of a large capital A in blue against a white
2
background, inside a lighter blue circle. When a franchisee loses its Anaheim franchise,
3
each cab that had held an Anaheim franchise had to quickly be taken into the Anaheim
4
Offices, where literally the City Staff would scrape those franchise stickers off each
5
stickered vehicle. The stickers were not allowed to remain. This is what Anaheim did to
6
SCC when it forced it to surrender its Anaheim stickers in about 2005.
7
3. Attached hereto collectively as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by
8
this reference are the two photos that I took of YELLOW CAB car #158 (license plate
9
number 36965F2,) which was stopped in traffic on Harbor Blvd. The first page of
:
Exhibit “A” shows the rear of cab #158 with the YELLOW CAB CO. wording. The
21
second page shows the side, with the YELLOW CAB triangle logo, and the “Operated
22
by...” verbiage. The Anaheim franchise sticker is also displayed, to the right and slightly
23
24 above those words.
25
4. Attached hereto collectively as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by
26
this reference are the three photos I took of YELLOW CAB car #683. This was parked in
27
front of a small fast food-type strip mall in Anaheim with a WABA Grill and a Subway
28
shop. The first of these photos shows, to the right-side of the cab, a sales transaction with
29
the driver having purchased fast food and the sales assistant helping him with the credit
2:
card charge after having brought the food out (thus seeming that this cab was being
31
operated and the driver had just stopped to pick up something to eat.) The photo also
32
shows the triangular YELLOW CAB Operated by: California Yellow Cab logo and
33
wording. This cab is easily identifiable in the following two photos since there is damage
34
to the body of the vehicle at the lower and right-hand portion of the passenger door. In
35
the second of these photos, the cab number (683) is shown, as well as a clear view of the
36
Anaheim (“A”) franchise sticker. The third of these photos shows the driver seated in the
37
car, evidencing that the cab was not just some random vehicle parked in front of the
38
WABA Grill, but rather was one in current service.
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM DECL RE: MOTION FOR FRANCHISE AWARD
4
5. On July 17, 2020 I also observed YELLOW CAB #697 operated by
2
CABCO, and bearing an ANAHEIM franchise sticker, in service and operating on Katella
3
Avenue near the 55 freeway in Villa Park, but I was unable to get a photograph of it.
4
6. On July 19, 2020 I took two cell photos of (former YELLOW CAB)
5
CABCO taxi #120 at the Fullerton Amtrak station. This cab also bears an ANAHEIM
6
franchise sticker, and bears the same CABCO identifying information as above. I have
7
attached them here collectively designated as Exhibit “C” and incorporate them herein.
8
7. On July 22, 2020 I took a cell photograph of YELLOW CAB (operated
9
by CABCO) taxi number 986, near Moulton Parkway and El Toro Road. Again, this
:
taxicab bears an ANAHEIM franchise logo. A true and correct copy of this photograph is
21
attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein.
22
8. On July 22, 2020 while in San Juan Capistrano I noticed CABCO car
23
# 633 operating there because it bore an older-looking (and possibly not current)
24
ANAHEIM franchise logo. I took a cell photograph of it, and a true and correct copy of
25
this photograph is attached hereto as Exhibit “E” and incorporated herein.
26
9. Around this time I began noticing that many of the CABCO cars
27
operating in the County bore what appeared to possibly be older ANAHEIM franchise
28
stickers, and the vehicles looked to be older than the maximum model year age of 2015.
29
On July 22, 2020 I took two photographs of CABCO vehicle #773 that was being operated
2:
near Highland and Irvine Blvd., and had a franchise sticker, and I have attached them here
31
collectively as Exhibit “F” and incorporate them herein.
32
10. On July 23, 2020 I took cell photographs of four more “CABCO”
33
taxicabs staged for operation at the John Wayne Airport. These included two photographs
34
each of CABCO vehicles numbers 614 and 654, which bore the possibly older ANAHEIM
35
franchise stickers, and which photographs I’ve attached hereto collectively designated as
36
Exhibit “G” and incorporated herein. They also include CABCO’s taken-over YELLOW
37
CAB vehicles numbers 104 and 376, each of which bears an ANAHEIM franchise sticker,
38
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM DECL RE: MOTION FOR FRANCHISE AWARD
5
the one affixed to cab number 376 of the older variety. I have attached copies of
2
photographs of cab numbers 104 and 376 hereto collectively designated as Exhibit “H”
3
and incorporate them herein by this reference.
4
11. Finally, on July 24, 2020 at the Anaheim Convention Center I took two
5
photographs of YELLOW CAB car #905 (operated by CABCO) bearing what appears to
6
be an older-style ANAHEIM franchise sticker. I’ve attached copies of those photographs
7
collectively designated as Exhibit “I,” and incorporate them herein by this reference.
8
9
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
:
that the foregoing is true and correct
21
.
22
Executed on July 28, 2020 at Anaheim, California.
23
24
/S/ Savvas Roditis
__________________________
25
SAVVAS RODITIS
26
27
28
29
2:
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM DECL RE: MOTION FOR FRANCHISE AWARD
6