Correspondence - #33 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 27 service to consumers generally.' (Historical Note, 65B West's Ann. Cal. Veh. Code (1987 ed.) § 3000, p. 263.)" Togas v. American Honda Motor Co. (1997) 57 Ca1.App.4th 506. In American Motors Sales Corp. v. NMVB, the court held that the mandatory requirement that dealer members sit on the Board in dealer -manufacturer controversies and lack of any counterbalancing requirement that manufacturer members sit on the Board, deprived the manufacturer -litigants of due process in the adjudication of "good cause" disputes. Id., at 992. The court held that because dealer members inevitably have an economic stake in the outcome, such a "dealer -stacked" Board failed to comport with the constitutional requirement of a fair and impartial tribunal. Id., at pp. 987-99L) The American Motors court expressed the background issue this way: The result is that although under the 1973 legislation the adversaries before the Board invariably derive from two distinct groups, dealers and manufacturers, the Board which resolves their disputes must include four members from the dealer group but need not include any members from the manufacturer group. Does an administrative tribunal so constituted meet the requirements of due process? Is it such "a competent and impartial tribunal in administrative hearings" (Peters v. Kiff (1972) 407 U.S. 493 [33 L.Ed.2d 83, 92 S. Ct. 2163]) as to comport with due process? "We agree with the trial judge's negative answer to these questions." American Motors Sales Corp. v. NMVB (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 983, 987 [138 Cal.Rptr. 594]. In the same manner, the landlords and tenants in Santa Ana, subject to adjudicating rent increases within their mobilehome parks, are invariably hostile, acrimonious and adversarial. The financial interest of the dealers (of which there were 4 rather of 9 total members) was not always consistent, a point very important to the Court. [The board] was given the added power to intrude upon the contractual rights and obligations of dealers and their product suppliers, entities whose respective economic interests are in no way identical, or coextensive, frequently not even harmonious. No longer did members of a trade or occupation (dealer -Board -members) regulate only their own kind; they began to regulate the economic and contractual relations of others with their own kind. American Motors Sales Corp. v. NMVB (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 983, 991. As in American Motor Sales, the tenant commissioners contemplated by the Santa Ana rent control law are not regulating their own kind, they are regulating "... the economic and contractual relations of others with their own kind" (id.), i.e., the park owners with whom their co -commissioner Smith was in an adversarial position. The legislature, quite incredibly in a democratic republic, called for requirement that the nine -man Board consist of at least four car dealers. In effect it took sides in all Board -adjudicated controversies between dealers and manufacturers, making certain that the dealer interests would at all times be substantially represented and favored. Of course, the court -27-