N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R OGER HUANG, Ge ne ra l Partne r, on be ha lf of HYW LIM ITED PAR TNER SHIP, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C ITY OF LOS ANGELES, a m unic ipa l c orporation, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-55400

D.C . No. 2:13-c v-07698-M M M -AJW M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M argare t M . M orrow, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 8, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, C LIFTON, a

nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. R oge r Hua

ng a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion of his suit c

ha lle nging theC ity

of Los Ange le s’ s c onduc t in a sse ssing taxe s a ga inst his busine ss. W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l for la c k



# FIL ED FEB 18 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion. N . C ty . C mty . All., Inc . v . Salazar , 573 F.3d 738, 741 (9th C ir. 2009). The Tax Injunc tion Ac t (TIA), 28 U.S.C . § 1341, ba rs taxpa y e rs from c ha lle nging theva lidity o f a sta te tax in fe de ra l c o urt whe re an a de q uate re m e dy

is ava ila ble in sta te c ourt. Hua

ng doe s not dispute

tha t suc h a “ pla in, spe e dy

and e ffic ie nt re m e dy ” is a

va ila ble in the C a lifornia

c o urts. 28 U.S.C . § 1341. Theke y fa c t ors to c onside r in de c iding whe the r a m unic ipa l fe e is a “ tax” for purpose s of the T IA are (1) the e ntity

tha t im pose s the c ha

rge ; (2) the pa

rtie s upon whom

the c ha rge is im pose d; a nd (3) the purpose of im

posing thec ha

rge . Bidart Bros v. C

al. Apple C omm’n , 73 F.3d 925, 931–32 (9th C ir. 1996). Applying Bidart , the busine ss ta

xe s a sse sse d by

the C ity of Los Ange l e s, a s we ll a s the pe na ltie s a dde d the re to for de linque nt pa

ym e nt, a re “ taxe s” unde r the TIA. The distric t c ourt the re fore la c ke d

subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion ove r Hua ng’ s c la im

c ha lle n ging the a sse ssm e nt of the taxe s a

nd pe na ltie s. The Supre m e C ourt’ s de c isions in N a tional Fe de ration of Inde pe nde nt Busine ss (N .F.I.B.) v . Se b e lius , 132 S. C t. 2566 (2012), a nd Dire c t Mark

e ting Assoc i ation v . Brohl , 135 S. C t. 1124 (2015), do not c ha nge this a na l y sis. The C ourt’ s a na ly sis in N

.F.I.B. is not “ c le arly

irre c onc ila

b le ” with e xisting Ninth

2C irc uit pre c e de nt. Mille r v . Gammie , 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th C ir. 2003) (e n ba nc ). Nor is there a soning of Dire c t Mark e ting a pplic a ble to the fa c ts of this c a se . The distric t c ourt did, howe ve r, a buse its disc re tion in dism issing Hua

ng’ s c la im with pre judic e . A dismi ssa l for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion, be c a use it doe s not go to the

m e rits of thec a se , is without pre judic e . Se e Oak

s of W oodlak e Phase III, Ltd. v
. Hall, Bay outre e Assoc s., Ltd. ( In re Hall, Bay outre e Assoc s., Ltd. ), 939 F.2d 802, 804 (9th C ir. 1991); se e also Fe d. R . C iv. P. 41(b). Hua ng’ s c la im the re fore should ha

ve be e n dism isse d without pre judic e . W e c onse que ntly va c ate the distric t c o urt’ s orde r of dism issa l with pre judic e and re m and with instruc tions to en te r a

dism i ssa l of the c om

p la int without pre

judic e for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion. C osts a re aw arde d

to De fe nda

nt-Appe l le e C ity

of Los Ange le s. V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D .

3