Batt

Batt v. City & County of San Francisco

Good Law
109 Cal. Rptr. 3d 129·184 Cal. App. 4th 163·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 588
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 28, 2010No. A123253California5,059 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Richman, J.

In Batt v. City and County of San Francisco (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 65 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 716 ], we held that an individual could not maintain a class action for refund of a municipal tax absent statutory authorization. Unquestioned in our decision was the right of that individual to prosecute the action on her own behalf. That individual, plaintiff Angel Batt, thereafter had a bench trial on her claim that the City and County of San Francisco (the City) improperly required hoteliers to apply the City’s hotel *167 tax to parking charges, challenging the validity of the administrative regulation that required collection on the grounds that it was not a proper tax on the “occupancy” of a hotel room. The trial court rejected her claim, upholding as valid the application of the City’s hotel tax to parking charges. We agree, and we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a resident of San Mateo County. On August 6, 2005, she drove to San Francisco and stayed overnight at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. In addition to what she was charged for the room, she was charged $55 for parking her automobile. Of the $55, $7.70, or 14 percent, was imposed pursuant to the City tax on the transient…

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.