Batt

Batt v. City and County of San Francisco

Bad Law
155 Cal. App. 4th 65·65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 716
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 12, 2007A114633California8,241 words

Opinion

Opinion

Plaintiff Angel Batt appeals from the order sustaining a general demurrer to those portions of her complaint that purported to state class action claims for refund of a San Francisco tax plaintiff alleged was erroneously collected from a class she proposed to represent. The trial court sustained the demurrer on the ground that San Francisco law does not allow class action suits to recover taxes. We hold that this conclusion was correct, and we affirm.

On January 20, 2006, plaintiff filed her complaint for herself "individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, and as a taxpayer representative." She alleged as follows:

The City and County of San Francisco (the City) has enacted a tax on transient occupancy of hotel rooms (the Hotel Tax) of 14 percent; it is assessed on the rental of a "guest room," which is defined as "A room occupied, or intended, arranged, or designed for occupation by one or more occupants." The Hotel Tax is collected by the hotel and remitted to the City. [1]

In December 2003, the City's treasurer and tax collector promulgated a number of "Hotel Tax Guidelines" (the Guidelines) advising hotel operators that the Hotel Tax applied…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.