Bunker

Bunker v. County of Orange

Good Law
103 Cal. App. 4th 542·126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 825·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4928·2002 Daily Journal DAR 12739·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10971
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 6, 2002No. G029383California5,920 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Sills, J.

A classic error in debate is attacking something that your opponent hasn’t said. (E.g., “Unlike my opponent Smerdley, I am in favor of the minimum wage” where poor old Smerdley has never said anything against the minimum wage.) In the case before us, the County of Orange has done a magnificent job of showing that the plaintiff cannot get relief that his complaint doesn’t actually seek. Like a dog with a chew toy, the county has shredded the notion one can bring a class claim for a property tax refund.

The only problem is, it’s somebody else’s chew toy, not the plaintiffs. This action is not, contrary to what we are told throughout the county’s respondent’s brief, a “class claim for a property tax refund.” No refund claims will be adjudicated in this lawsuit, nor will this action itself require any refund checks being issued. This action will, at the most, merely result in an order requiring the county to do what the Legislature has already said it must do automatically, which is to send out notices to certain taxpayers when the county has failed for more than two years to make a final determination on their petitions for reassessment. Any refunds that occur as a result…

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.