Stutrud v. City of Rohnert Park
In Neecke v. City of Mill Valley (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 946 (Neecke), this court held that a suit against a municipality for a refund of taxes allegedly exacted in violation of Proposition 13 could not be maintained as a class action because it lacked statutory authorization. As part of that holding, we also concluded that a representative suit authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 382 did not displace the more specific provisions governing refund actions in the Revenue and Taxation Code. Only last year, in Batt v. City and County of San Francisco (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 65 (Batt), we reiterated these holdings, and further held that the principle that class action refund actions could not be maintained against a municipality without express statutory approval could not be evaded by attempting to recast a refund claim in the guise of different causes of action. That portion of the order striking the prayer request for attorney fees is reversed. The order is affirmed in all other respects. The parties shall bear their respective costs of appeal.
Comments on Stutrud v. City of Rohnert Park