Ardon v. City of Los Angeles
128 Cal. Rptr. 3d 283
| Cal. | 2011Background
- Ardon, a resident of Los Angeles, sued the City challenging the City's telephone users tax (TUT) and seeking refunds for the preceding two years.
- Ardon alleged the TUT was illegal because amounts exempt from the federal excise tax (FET) were also exempt from the TUT, implying improper collection.
- The City amended the TUT to remove references to the FET after Ardon's filing; the amendment does not resolve the refund issue for the class.
- The trial court struck all class action allegations, ruling Woosley prohibits class refunds, and stayed other claims.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of class certification, creating a conflict with Oronoz which allowed class claims under section 910.
- The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether Government Code section 910 permits a taxpayer class action for refund of local taxes and how this interacts with Woosley and Article XIII, §32.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gov. Code § 910 permits a taxpayer class action for local tax refunds | Ardon: class action permissible under §910 for refunds | City: §910 requires individual claims or statutory schemes for refunds | Yes; §910 permits class claims for taxpayer refunds against local governments |
| Whether Woosley governs the availability of class refunds under §910 | Ardon: Woosley not controlling here because §910 governs, not tax-specific statutes | City: Woosley controls and may preclude class refunds absent explicit statute | Woosley does not control; §910 authorizes class refunds against local entities |
| Whether Article XIII, §32 precludes the action | Ardon: constitutional provision does not bar class refunds under §910 | City: §32 restricts tax refund actions unless expressly authorized | No; §910 provides express authorization for class claims against local government |
| Relation to City of San Jose precedent on class claims under §910 | Ardon: City of San Jose supports treating 'claimant' as the class itself under §910 | City: San Jose limited to nuisance context and not tax refunds; Woosley controls | City of San Jose authority extends to §910 class claims for refunds |
Key Cases Cited
- City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.3d 447 (1974) (authorized class claims under §910 for nuisance-type actions; informs 'claimant' scope)
- Woosley v. State of California, 3 Cal.4th 758 (1992) (tax refund statutes; constitutional limits on class refunds; strict compliance analysis)
- Oronoz v. County of Los Angeles, 159 Cal.App.4th 353 (2008) (endorsed class claims under §910 in a local-government context)
- Batt v. City and County of San Francisco, 155 Cal.App.4th 65 (2007) (art. XIII, §32 and tax refund issues; distinguishes specific refund procedures)
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 79 Cal.App.4th 242 (2000) (limits on class actions for tax/refund challenges absent statutory authorization)